Book contents
- Progress through Regression
- Historical Perspectives On Modern Economics
- Progress through Regression
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Paul Douglas and His Regression, 1927–1948
- Part II The Diffusion of the Cobb–Douglas Regression
- Part III Conclusion
- References
- Index
- Historical Perspectives On Modern Economics
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 October 2020
Book contents
- Progress through Regression
- Historical Perspectives On Modern Economics
- Progress through Regression
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Paul Douglas and His Regression, 1927–1948
- Part II The Diffusion of the Cobb–Douglas Regression
- Part III Conclusion
- References
- Index
- Historical Perspectives On Modern Economics
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Progress through RegressionThe Life Story of the Empirical Cobb-Douglas Production Function, pp. 315 - 330Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Abramovitz, Moses. 1956. “Resource and Output Trends in the United States Since 1870.” American Economic Review 46, no. 2 (May): 5–23.Google Scholar
Abramovitz, Moses. 1962. “Economic Growth in the United States.” The American Economic Review 52, no. 4 (Sep.): 762–82.Google Scholar
Alford, L. P. 1929. “Technical Change in Manufacturing.” In Recent Economic Changes, edited by the Committee on Recent Economic Changes of the President’s Conference on Unemployment, Vol. 1, 96–166. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1985. Collected Papers of Kenneth J. Arrow: Production and Capital, Vol. 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J., Chenery, H. B., Minhas, B. S., and Solow, R. M.. 1961. “Capital-Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 43, no. 3 (Aug.): 225–50.Google Scholar
Aukrust, Odd. 1959. “Investment and Economic Growth.” Productivity Measurement Review 16 (Feb.): 35–54.Google Scholar
Aukrust, Odd and Bjerke, Juule. 1959. “Real Capital and Economic Growth in Norway, 1900–56.” Review of Income and Wealth 8, no. 1 (Mar.): 80–118.Google Scholar
Ayres, Leonard. 1927. “The Dilemma of the New Statistics.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 22, no. 157 (Mar.): 1–8.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Roger. 1998. “The Transformation of U.S. Economics, 1920–1960, Viewed through a Survey of Journal Articles.” History of Political Economy 30 (annual suppl.): 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banzhaf, H. Spencer. 2006. “The Other Economics Department: Demand and Value Theory in Early Agricultural Economics.” History of Political Economy 38 (annual suppl.): 9–30.Google Scholar
Barber, William J. 1985. From New Era to New Deal: Herbert Hoover, the Economists and American Economic Policy, 1921–1933. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, William J. 1994. “The Divergent Fate of Two Strands of Institutionalist Doctrine during the New Deal Years.” History of Political Economy 26, no. 2 (Summer): 569–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barro, Robert J. 1999. “Notes on Growth Accounting.” Journal of Economic Growth 4, no. 2 (June): 119–37.Google Scholar
Barton, Glen T. and Cooper, Martin R.. 1948. “Relation of Agricultural Production to Inputs.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 30, no. 2 (May): 117–26.Google Scholar
Bell, Spurgeon. 1939. Productivity, Wages, and National Income. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Benedict, M. R. 1932a. “The Opportunity Cost Basis of the Substitution Method in Farm Management.” Journal of Farm Economics 14, no. 3 (July): 384–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, M. R. 1932b. “The Opportunity Cost Basis of the Substitution Method in Farm Management.” Journal of Farm Economics 14, no. 4 (Oct.): 541–57.Google Scholar
Beneke, Raymond R. 1994. “On Becoming Distinguished.” In Earl O Heady: His Impact on Agricultural Economics, edited by Langley, James, Vocke, Gary, and Whiting, Larry, 3–23. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Berglas, Eitan. 1965. “Investment and Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy 73, no. 2 (Apr.): 173–80.Google Scholar
Berman, Edward. 1934. “Review of The Theory of Wages.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 174 (July): 182–3.Google Scholar
Biddle, Jeff E. 1996. “H. Gregg Lewis.” In American Economists of the Late 20th Century, edited by Samuels, Warren, 174–93. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Biddle, Jeff E. 1999. “Statistical Economics, 1900–1950.” History of Political Economy 31 (Winter): 607–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Jeff E. 2011. “The Introduction of the Cobb–Douglas Regression and Its Adoption by Agricultural Economists.” History of Political Economy 38 (annual suppl.): 235–57.Google Scholar
Biddle, Jeff E. 2012. “Retrospectives: The Introduction of the Cobb–Douglas Regression.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, no. 2 (Spring): 223–36.Google Scholar
Biddle, Jeff E. 2017. “Statistical Inference in Economics, 1920–1965: Changes in Meaning and Practice.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 39, no. 2 (June): 149–73.Google Scholar
Bigge, George E. 1934. “Review of The Theory of Wages.” The American Economic Review 24, no. 4 (Dec.): 688–93.Google Scholar
Bioanovsky, M. and Hoover, K. D.. 2009. Robert Solow and the Development of Growth Economics. History of Political Economy 41 (suppl.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Black, John (ed.). 1932. Research in Farm Management: Scope and Method. New York: Social Science Research Council.Google Scholar
Black, R. D. C., Coats, Alfred W., and Goodwin, Craufurd D. W. (eds.). 1973. The Marginal Revolution in Economics: Interpretation and Evaluation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, David E., Canning, David, and Sevilla, Jaypee. 2003. “The Effect of Health on Economic Growth: A Production Function Approach.” World Development 32, no. 1: 1–13.Google Scholar
Bloom, Gordon. 1946. “A Note on Hicks’s Theory of Invention.” The American Economic Review 36, no. 1 (Mar.): 83–96.Google Scholar
Boulding, Kenneth. 1961. “Some Difficulties in the Concept of Economic Input.” In Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Output, Input, and Productivity Measurement, 331–46. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Boumans, Marcel. 2009. “Dynamizing Stability.” In Robert Solow and the Development of Growth Economics, edited by Bioanovsky, M. and Hoover, K. D., 127–48. History of Political Economy 41 (suppl.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bowles, Samuel. 1970. “Towards in Education Production Function.” In Education, Income, and Human Capital, edited by Hansen, W. Lee, 11–70. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Brewer, Anthony. 1991. “Economic Growth and Technical Change: John Rae’s Critique of Adam Smith.” History of Political Economy 23 (Spring): 1–11.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, Martin. 1939. “The Cobb–Douglas Function and Trade-Union Policy.” The American Economic Review 29, no. 4 (Dec.): 793–6.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, Martin. 1944. “Production Functions: Cobb–Douglas, Interfirm, Intrafirm.” Econometrica 12, no. 1 (Jan.): 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, Martin and Douglas, Paul H.. 1939. “Cross-Section Studies in the Cobb–Douglas Function.” The Journal of Political Economy 47, no. 6 (Dec.): 761–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Murray. 1966. On the Theory and Measurement of Technological Change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Murray and De Cani, John S.. 1961. “Technological Change in the United States, 1950–1960.” In American Statistical Association 1961: Proceedings of the Business and Economic Statistics Section, 74–81. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
Burnett, Paul. 2011. “Academic Freedom or Political Maneuvers: Theodore W. Schultz and the Oleomargarine Controversy Revisited.” Agricultural History 85, no. 3 (Summer): 373–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burns, Arthur F. and Mitchell, W. C.. 1946. Measuring Business Cycles. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Cargill, T. F. 1974. “Early Applications of Spectral Methods to Economic Time Series.” History of Political Economy 6, no. 1: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Carol S. 1975. “The History of the United States National Income and Product Accounts: The Development of an Analytical Tool.” Review of Income and Wealth 21, no. 2 (June): 153–81.Google Scholar
Chenery, Hollis B. 1960a. “Interindustry Research in Economic Development.” The American Economic Review, 50, no. 2 (May): 649–53.Google Scholar
Chenery, Hollis B. 1960b. “Patterns of Industrial Growth.” The American Economic Review 50, no. 4 (Sep.): 624–54.Google Scholar
Chenery, Hollis B. and Watanabe, Tsunehiko. 1958. “International Comparisons of the Structure of Production.” Econometrica 26, no. 4 (Oct.): 487–521.Google Scholar
Christensen, L., Jorgenson, D., and Lau, L.. 1973. “Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 55, no. 1 (Aug.): 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. B. 1908 [1899]. The Distribution of Wealth: A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Clark, J. M. 1928. “Inductive Evidence on Marginal Productivity.” The American Economic Review 18, no. 3 (Sep.): 450–67.Google Scholar
Cobb, Charles W. 1913. The Asymptotic Development for a Certain Integral Function of Zero Order. Norwood, MA: The Norwood Press. https://archive.org/stream/asymptoticdevelo00cobbrich#page/n1/mode/2upGoogle Scholar
Cobb, Charles W. 1930. “Production in Massachusetts Manufacturing, 1890–1928.” The Journal of Political Economy 38, no. 6 (Dec.): 705–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, Charles W. and Douglas, Paul H.. 1928. “A Theory of Production.” The American Economic Review 18, no. 1 (Mar.): 139–65.Google Scholar
Collier, Irwin. 2016. “Amherst. Charles W. Cobb and Paul H. Douglas, 1926.” www.irwincollier.com/amherst-charles-w-cobb-and-paul-h-douglas-1926/Google Scholar
Copeland, Morris A. 1929. “The National Income and Its Distribution.” In Recent Economic Changes, edited by the Committee on Recent Economic Changes of the President’s Conference on Unemployment, Vol. 1, 761–844. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Copeland, Morris A. 1937. “Concepts of National Income.” In Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 1, edited by the Conference on Research in National Income and Wealth, 3–63. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Copeland, Morris A. and Martin, E. M.. 1938. “The Correction of Wealth and Income Estimates for Price Changes.” In Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 2, edited by the Conference on Research in National Income and Wealth, 85–135. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Daly, Patricia and Douglas, Paul H.. 1943. “The Production Function for Canadian Manufacturers.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 38, no. 222 (June): 178–86.Google Scholar
Daly, Patricia, Olson, Ernest, and Douglas, Paul H.. 1943. “The Production Function for Manufacturing in the United States, 1904.” The Journal of Political Economy 51, no. 1 (Feb.): 61–5.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine J. and Galison, Peter. 1992. “The Image of Objectivity.” Special Issue, “Seeing Science,” Representations 40: 81–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, Edmund E. and Persons, W. M.. (1920a). “An Index of the Physical Volume of Production: I. Agriculture 1879–1919.” Review of Economic Statistics 2, no. 9 (Sep.): 246–59.Google Scholar
Day, Edmund E. and Persons, W. M.. (1920b). “An Index of the Physical Volume of Production: II. Mining 1979–1919.” Review of Economic Statistics 2, no. 10 (Oct.): 287–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, Edmund E. and Persons, W. M.. (1920c). “An Index of the Physical Volume of Production: III. Manufacture 1899–1919.” Review of Economic Statistics 2, no. 11 (Nov.): 309–37.Google Scholar
Day, Edmund E. and Persons, W. M.. (1920d). “An Index of the Physical Volume of Production: III. Manufacture (concluded).” Review of Economic Statistics 2, no. 12 (Dec.): 361–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, Edmund E. and Persons, W. M.. (1921). “An Index of the Physical Volume of Production: IV. Agriculture, Mining, and Manufacturing Combined, 1899–1919.” Review of Economic Statistics 3, no. 1 (Jan.): 19–22.Google Scholar
Denison, Edward F. 1962. The Sources of Economic Growth and the Alternatives Before Us. Committee for Economic Development Supplementary Paper # 13. New York: Committee for Economic Development.Google Scholar
Denison, Edward F. 1964. “The Unimportance of the Embodied Question.” The American Economic Review 54, no. 2, Part 1 (Mar.): 90–4.Google Scholar
Dennison, Henry S. 1930. “Some Economic and Social Accompaniments of the Mechanization of Industry.” American Economic Review 20, no. 1, Supplement (Mar.): 133–55.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Z. C. 1934. “Recent Literature on Wage Theory.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 49, no. 1 (Nov.): 138–46.Google Scholar
Dillon, John L. 1994. “Agricultural Production Function Analysis.” In Earl O Heady: His Impact on Agricultural Economics, edited by Langley, James, Vocke, Gary, and Whiting, Larry, 52–61. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Domar, Evsey. 1961. “On the Measurement of Technological Change.” The Economic Journal 71, no. 284 (Dec.): 709–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Paul H. 1918. “The Problem of Labor Turnover.” The American Economic Review 8, no. 2 (June): 306–16.Google Scholar
Douglas, Paul H. 1919. “Is the New Immigration More Unskilled than the Old?” Publications of the American Statistical Association 16, no. 126 (June): 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Paul H. 1926. “The Movement of Real Wages and Its Economic Significance.” The American Economic Review 16, no. 1, Supplement (Mar.): 17–53.Google Scholar
Douglas, Paul H. 1927. “The Modern Technique of Mass Production and Its Relation to Wages.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York 12, no. 3, Stabilizing Business (July): 17–42.Google Scholar
Douglas, Paul H. 1930. Real Wages in the United States, 1890–1926. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Douglas, Paul H. 1939. “Henry Schultz as Colleague.” Econometrica 7, no. 2: 104–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Paul H. 1948. “Are There Laws of Production?” The American Economic Review 38, no. 1 (Mar.): i–ii+1–41.Google Scholar
Douglas, Paul H. 1967. “Comments on the Cobb–Douglas Production Function.” In The Theory and Empirical Analysis of Production, edited by Brown, Murray, 15–22. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, Paul H. 1971. In the Fullness of Time: The Memoirs of Paul H. Douglas. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Douglas, Paul H. 1976. “The Cobb–Douglas Production Function Once Again: Its History, Its Testing, and Some New Empirical Values.” The Journal of Political Economy 84, no. 5 (Oct.): 903–15.Google Scholar
Douglas, Paul H. and Lamberson, Francis. 1921. “The Movement of Real Wages, 1890–1918.” The American Economic Review 11, no. 3 (Sep.): 409–26.Google Scholar
Dupont-Kieffer, Arienne and Pirotte, Alain. 2011. “The Early Years of Panel Data Econometrics.” History of Political Economy 43 (suppl.): 258–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, David. 1937. “Some Thoughts on Marginal Productivity, with Special Reference to Professor Douglas’ Analysis.” The Journal of Political Economy 45, no. 6 (Dec.): 740–58.Google Scholar
Easterly, William. 2001. The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ezekiel, Mordecai. 1926. “Studies of the Effectiveness of Individual Farm Enterprises.” Journal of Farm Economics 8, no. 1 (Jan.): 86–101.Google Scholar
Fabricant, Solomon. 1942. Employment in Manufacturing, 1899–1939: An Analysis of Its Relation to the Volume of Production. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Fabricant, Solomon. 1954. Economic Progress and Economic Change. 34th annual report. New York: NBER. www.nber.org/chapters/c12288.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fabricant, Solomon. 1959. The Study of Economic Growth. New York: NBER. http://papers.nber.org/books/fabr59–2Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. 1963. “Cross-Section Production Functions and the Elasticity of Substitution in American Manufacturing Industry.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 45, no. 3 (Aug.): 305–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Karl A. 1986. “Agricultural Economists as World Leaders in Applied Econometrics, 1917–33.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68, no. 2 (May): 381–6.Google Scholar
Fox, Karl A. 1989. “Agricultural Economists in the Econometric Revolution: Institutional Background, Literature and Leading Figures.” Oxford Economic Papers New Series, 41, no. 1 History and Methodology of Econometrics (Jan.): 53–70.Google Scholar
Frankel, Marvin. 1957. “British and American Manufacturing Productivity.” University of Illinois Bulletin. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Frisch, Ragnar. 1934. Statistical Confluence Analysis by Means of Complete Regression Systems. Oslo: Universitetets Økonomiske Instituut.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Victor R. 1963. “Capital Labor Substitution: A Note.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 45, no. 4 (Nov.): 436–8.Google Scholar
Fuller, Wayne A. 1962. “Estimating the Reliability of Quantities Derived from Empirical Production Functions.” Journal of Farm Economics 44, no. 1 (Feb.): 82–99.Google Scholar
Gay, Edwin F. and Mitchell, W. C.. 1932. “Report of the President and Report of the Directors of Research for the Year 1931.” New York: NBER. www.nber.org/chapters/c4299.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gay, Edwin F. and Mitchell, W. C.. 1933. “Message of the President, Report of the Directors of Research for the Year 1932.” New York: NBER. www.nber.org/chapters/c4151.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gilfillan, S. C. 1932. “Inventions and Discoveries.” American Journal of Sociology 37, no. 6 (May): 868–75.Google Scholar
Girshick, M. A. and Haavelmo, Trygve. 1947. “Statistical Analysis of the Demand for Food: Examples of Simultaneous Estimation of Structural Equations.” Econometrica 15, no. 2 (Apr.): 79–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, Raymond. 1950. “Measuring National Wealth in a System of Social Accounting.” Studies in Income and Wealth 12: 21–80.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Raymond. 1951. “A Perpetual Inventory of National Wealth.” Studies in Income and Wealth 14: 5–74.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Raymond. 1952. “The Growth of Reproducible Wealth of the United States of America from 1805 to 1950.” In Income and Wealth in the United States, Trends and Structure, Income and Wealth Series II, edited by Kuznets, Simon. Cambridge, MA and Baltimore: International Association for Research in Income and Wealth.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. A. 1956. “Population Growth, Housing, and the Capital Coefficient.” The American Economic Review 46, no. 3 (June): 307–22.Google Scholar
Gordon, Robert J. 1990. The Measurement of Durable Goods Prices. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, Jeremy, Hercowitz, Zvi, and Krusell, Per. 1997. “Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change.” The American Economic Review 87, no. 3 (Sep.): 342–62.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. 1957. “Specification Bias in Production Function Estimation.” Journal of Farm Economics 39, no. 1 (Jan.): 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. 1962. “Review of Agricultural Production Functions by Earl O. Heady, John L. Dillon.” The American Economic Review 52, no. 1: 280–3.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. 1963a. “Estimates of the Aggregate Agricultural Production Function from Cross-Sectional Data.” Journal of Farm Economics 45, no. 2 (May): 419–28.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. 1963b. “The Sources of Measured Productivity Growth: United States Agriculture, 1940–60.” The Journal of Political Economy 71, no. 4 (Aug.): 331–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. 1964. “Research Expenditures, Education, and the Aggregate Agricultural Production Function.” The American Economic Review 54, no. 6 (Dec.): 961–74.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. 1967. “Production Functions in Manufacturing: Some Preliminary Results.” In The Theory and Empirical Analysis of Production, edited by Brown, Murray, 275–340. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. 1968. “Production Functions in Manufacturing: Some Additional Results.” Southern Economic Journal 35, no. 2: 151–6.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. 1979. “Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth.” The Bell Journal of Economics 10, no. 1 (Spring): 92–116.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. 1986. “Productivity, R and D, and Basic Research at the Firm Level in the 1970s.” The American Economic Review 76, no. 1 (Mar.): 141–54.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. 1996. “The Discovery of the Residual: A Historical Note.” Journal of Economic Literature 34, no. 3 (Sep.): 1324–30.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi and Jorgenson, Dale W.. 1966. “Sources of Measured Productivity Change: Capital Input.” The American Economic Review 56, no. 1/2 (Mar.): 50–61.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi and Mairesse, Jacques. 1999. “Production Functions: The Search for Identification.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 5067, New York: NBER www.nber.org/papers/w5067.pdfGoogle Scholar
Griliches, Zvi and Ringstad, Vidar. 1971. Economies of Scale and the Form of the Production Function: An Econometric Study of Norwegian Manufacturing Establishment Data. Contributions to Economic Analysis, Vol. 72. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Grose, Lawrence, Rottenberg, Irving, and Wasson, Robert. 1966. “New Estimates of Fixed Business Capital in the United States, 1925–65.” Survey of Current Business 46 (Dec.): 46–52.Google Scholar
Gunn, Grace T. and Douglas, Paul H.. 1940. “Further Measurements of Marginal Productivity.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 54, no. 3 (May): 399–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, Grace T. and Douglas, Paul H.. 1941a. “The Production Function for American Manufacturing in 1919.” The American Economic Review 31, no. 1 (Mar.): 67–80.Google Scholar
Gunn, Grace T. and Douglas, Paul H.. 1941b. “A Reply to Dr. Mendershausen’s Criticism.” The American Economic Review 31, no. 3 (Sep.): 564–7.Google Scholar
Gunn, Grace T. and Douglas, Paul H.. 1941c. “The Production Function for Australian Manufacturing.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 56, no. 1, pt. 1 (Nov.): 108–29.Google Scholar
Gunn, Grace T. and Douglas, Paul H.. 1942. “The Production Function for American Manufacturing for 1914.” The Journal of Political Economy 50, no. 4 (Aug.): 595–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haavelmo, Trygve. 1944. “The Probability Approach in Econometrics.” Econometrica 12, Supplement (July): iii-115.Google Scholar
Haavelmo, Trygve. 1947. “Quantitative Research in Agricultural Economics: The Interdependence between Agriculture and the National Economy.” Journal of Farm Economics 29, no. 4: 910–24.Google Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Hall, R. E. 1968. “Technical Change and Capital from the Point of View of the Dual.” The Review of Economic Studies 35, no. 1 (Jan.): 35–46.Google Scholar
Hamermesh, Daniel. 2018. “Citations in Economics: Measurement, Uses and Impacts.” Journal of Economic Literature 56, no. 1 (Mar.): 115–56.Google Scholar
Handsaker, Marjorie L. and Douglas, Paul H.. 1937. “The Theory of Marginal Productivity Tested by Data for Manufacturing in Victoria, I.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 52, no. 1 (Nov.): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handsaker, Marjorie L. and Douglas, Paul H.. 1938. “The Theory of Marginal Productivity Tested by Data for Manufacturing in Victoria, II.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 52, no. 2 (Feb.): 215–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harries, H. 1947. “The Development and Use of Production Functions for Firms in Agriculture.” Scientific Agriculture 27, no. 10: 487–93.Google Scholar
Harris, D. N. 2010. “Education Production Function: Concepts.” In International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd ed., edited by Peterson, Penelope, Baker, Eva, and McGaw, Barry. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Heady, Earl O. 1946. “Production Functions from a Random Sample of Farms.” Journal of Farm Economics 28, no. 4 (Nov.): 989–1004.Google Scholar
Heady, Earl O. 1947. “Economics of Farm Leasing Systems.” Journal of Farm Economics 29, no. 3 (Aug.): 659–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heady, Earl O. 1948. “Elementary Models in Farm Production Economics Research.” Journal of Farm Economics 30, no. 2 (May): 201–25.Google Scholar
Heady, Earl O. 1949. “Implications of Particular Economics in Agricultural Economics Methodology.” Journal of Farm Economics 31, no. 4, Part 2: Proceedings Number (Nov.): 837–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heady, Earl O. 1951. “A Production Function and Marginal Rates of Substitution in the Utilization of Feed Resources by Dairy Cows.” Journal of Farm Economics 33, no. 4, pt. 1 (Nov.): 485–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heady, Earl O. 1952. “Use and Estimation of Input-Output Relationships or Productivity Coefficients.” Journal of Farm Economics 34, no. 5: 775–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heady, Earl O. 1955. “Marginal Resource Productivity and Imputation of Shares for a Sample of Rented Farms.” Journal of Political Economy 63 (Dec.): 500–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heady, Earl O. 1957a. “An Econometric Investigation of the Technology of Agricultural Production Functions.” Econometrica 25, no. 2 (Apr.): 249–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heady, Earl O. 1957b. “Organization Activities and Criteria in Obtaining and Fitting Technical Production Functions.” Journal of Farm Economics 39, no. 2 (May): 360–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heady, Earl O. and Dillon, John L.. 1961. Agricultural Production Functions. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Heady, Earl O. and Shaw, Russell. 1954. “Resource Returns and Productivity Coefficients in Selected Farming Areas.” Journal of Farm Economics 36, no. 2: 243–57.Google Scholar
Heady, Earl O. and du Toit, Schalk. 1954. “Marginal Resource Productivity for Agriculture in Selected Areas of South Africa and the United States.” Journal of Political Economy 62, no. 6 (Dec.): 494–505.Google Scholar
Heady, Earl O., Woodworth, Roger C., Catron, Damon, and Ashton, Gordon C.. 1953. “An Experiment to Derive Productivity and Substitution Coefficients in Pork Output.” Journal of Farm Economics 35, no. 3: 341–54.Google Scholar
Heath, J. B. 1957. “British-Canadian Industrial Productivity.” The Economic Journal 67, no. 268 (Dec.): 665–91.Google Scholar
Hendry, David F. and Morgan, Mary S.. 1989. “A Re-analysis of Confluence Analysis.” Oxford Economic Papers New Series 41, no. 1: 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoch, Irving. 1955. “Estimation of Production Function Parameters and Testing for Efficiency.” Econometrica 23, no. 1 (Jan.): 325–6.Google Scholar
Hoch, Irving. 1958. “Simultaneous Equation Bias in the Context of the Cobb–Douglas Production Function.” Econometrica 26, no. 4 (Oct.): 566–78.Google Scholar
Hoch, Irving. 1962. “Estimation of Production Function Parameters Combining Time-Series and Cross-Section Data.” Econometrica 30, no. 1 (Jan.): 34–53.Google Scholar
Hogan, Warren P. 1958. “Technical Progress and Production Functions.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 40, no. 4 (Nov.): 407–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, J. A. Jr. 1930. “Interpretation of Farm Efficiency Factors.” Journal of Farm Economics 12, no. 3 (July): 384–402.Google Scholar
Hulten, Charles R. 1992. “Growth Accounting When Technical Change Is Embodied in Capital.” The American Economic Review 82, no. 4 (Sep.): 964–80.Google Scholar
Intriligator, Michael D. 1965. “Embodied Technical Change and Productivity in the United States 1929–1958.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 47, no. 1 (Feb.): 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Einar. 1940. “Determining Input-Output Relationships in Milk Production.” Journal of Farm Economics 22, no. 1 (Feb.): 249–58.Google Scholar
Johnson, Glenn L. 1955. “Results from Production Economic Analysis.” Journal of Farm Economics 37, no. 2 (May): 206–22.Google Scholar
Jones, William O. 1952. “The New Agricultural Economics.” Journal of Farm Economics 34, no. 4 (Nov.): 441–50.Google Scholar
Jorgenson, Dale W. 1966. “The Embodiment Hypothesis.” Journal of Political Economy 74, no. 1 (Feb.): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorgenson, Dale W. 1988. “Productivity and Postwar U.S. Economic Growth.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 2, no. 4 (Autumn): 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, David. 2005. Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kanel, Don. 1957. “Discussion: Relative Roles of Survey and Experiment in Farm Management Research.” Journal of Farm Economics 39, no. 5 (Dec.): 1451–4.Google Scholar
Kendrick, John W. 1956. “Productivity Trends: Capital and Labor.” Occasional Paper 53. New York: NBER.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, John W. 1961a. “Introduction: Productivity and National Income Accounting.” In Output, Input, and Productivity Measurement, edited by the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, 1–20. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kendrick, John W. 1961b. Productivity Trends in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kjaer, Swen. 1929. The Productivity of Labor in Newspaper Printing. Washington, DC: USGPO.Google Scholar
Klein, Lawrence R. 1946. “Remarks on the Theory of Aggregation.” Econometrica 14, no. 4 (Oct.): 303–12.Google Scholar
Klein, Lawrence R. 1947. “The Use of Econometric Models as a Guide to Economic Policy.” Econometrica 15, no. 2 (Apr.): 111–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Lawrence R. 1953. A Textbook of Econometrics. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson & Co.Google Scholar
Knowles, James W. 1960. “The Potential Economic Growth in the United States.” Study paper no. 20, prepared for the Joint Economic Committee in connection with the study Employment, Growth, and Price Levels (86th Congress, 2nd session). Washington, DC: USGPO.Google Scholar
Konijn, H. S. 1959. “Estimation of an Average Production Function from Surveys.” Economic Record 35 (Apr.): 118–25.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling C. 1937. Linear Regression Analysis of Economic Time Series. Haarlem: DeErven F. Bohn.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling C. 1945. “Statistical Estimation of Simultaneous Economic Relations.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 40, no. 232, Part 1 (Dec.): 448–66.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling C. 1947. “Measurement without Theory.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 29, no. 3 (Aug.): 161–72.Google Scholar
Krueger, Alan B. and Taylor, Timothy. 2000. “An Interview with Zvi Griliches.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, no. 2 (Spring): 171–89.Google Scholar
Kuznets, Simon. 1934. “Gross Capital Formation, 1919–1933.” National Bureau of Economic Research Bulletin 52. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Kuznets, Simon. 1938b. “On the Measurement of National Wealth.” In Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 2, 3–61. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Kuznets, Simon. 1947. “Measurement of Economic Growth.” The Journal of Economic History 7, Supplement: Economic Growth: A Symposium: 10–34.Google Scholar
Kuznets, Simon. 1949a. “Suggestion for an Inquiry into the Economic Growth of Nations.” In Problems in the Study of Economic Growth, edited by Universities-National Bureau Committee on Economic Research, 23–46. New York: NBER. www.nber.org/chapters/c9509.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kuznets, Simon. 1949b. “Notes on the Quantitative Approach to Economic Growth.” In Problems in the Study of Economic Growth, edited by Universities-National Bureau Committee on Economic Research, 117–74. New York: NBER. www.nber.org/chapters/c9509.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kuznets, Simon. 1952. “Proportion of Capital Formation to National Product.” The American Economic Review 42, no. 2 (May): 507–26.Google Scholar
Kuznets, Simon, assisted by Epstein, Lillian and Jenks, Elizabeth. 1946. National Product since 1869. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Lange, Oscar. 1939. “Is the American Economy Contracting?” The American Economic Review 29, no. 3 (Sep.): 503–13.Google Scholar
James, Langley, Vocke, Gary, and Whiting, Larry, editors. 1994. Earl O Heady: His Impact on Agricultural Economics. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, Thomas. 2016. Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Leontief, Wassily. 1934. “Interest on Capital and Distribution: A Problem in the Theory of Marginal Productivity.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 49, no. 1 (Nov.): 147–61.Google Scholar
Leontief, Wassily. 1951 [1941]. The Structure of American Economy, 1919–1939, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lescohier, Don D. 1935. “The Theory of Wages.” Political Science Quarterly 50, no. 2 (Jun.): 272–7.Google Scholar
Levinsohn, J. and Petrin, A. 2003. “Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables.” Review of Economic Studies 70, no. 2 (Apr.): 317–41.Google Scholar
Lloyd, P. J. 2001. “The Origins of the von Thünen–Mill–Pareto–Wicksell–Cobb–Douglas Function.” History of Political Economy 33, no. 1 (Spring): 1–19.Google Scholar
Lomax, K. S. 1949. “An Agricultural Production Function for the United Kingdom, 1924–1947.” Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies 17: 146–62.Google Scholar
Lomax, K. S. 1950. “Coal Production Functions for Great Britain.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) 113, no. 3: 346–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, C. A. Knox. 1973. “CES and VES Production Functions in a Cross-Section Context.” Journal of Political Economy 81, no. 3 (May–June): 705–20.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, David. 1953. “Review of Economics of Agricultural Production and Resource Use by Earl O. Heady.” Journal of Farm Economics 35, no. 3 (Aug.): 444–5.Google Scholar
Marschak, Jacob. 1936. “An Empirical Analysis of the Laws of Distribution.” Economica New Series 3, no. 10 (May): 221–6.Google Scholar
Marschak, Jacob and Andrews, William H. Jr. 1944. “Random Simultaneous Equations and the Theory of Production.” Econometrica 12, no. 3/4 (Jul.–Oct.): 143–205.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. 1992 [1848]. The Communist Manifesto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Ada M. 1925. “The Physical Volume of Production in the United States for 1924.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 7, no. 3 (July): 208–16.Google Scholar
McHugh, Richard and Lane, Julia. 1983. “The Embodiment Hypothesis: An Interregional Test.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 65, no. 2 (May): 323–7.Google Scholar
Mendershausen, Horst. 1938. “On the Significance of Professor Douglas’ Production Function.” Econometrica 6, no. 2 (Apr.): 143–53.Google Scholar
Mendershausen, Horst. 1941a. “On the Significance of Another Production Function: A Comment.” The American Economic Review 31, no. 3 (Sep.): 563–4.Google Scholar
Mendershausen, Horst. 1941b. “A Reply to Dr. Mendershausen’s Criticism: A Rejoinder.” The American Economic Review 31, no. 3 (Sep.): 567–9.Google Scholar
Menze, Robert E. 1942. “An Economic Analysis of Length of Feeding Period in the Production of Hogs.” Journal of Farm Economics 24, no. 2 (May): 518–23.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1935. “Fluctuations in the Rate of Industrial Invention.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 49, no. 3 (May): 454–74.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1987 [1848]. Principles of Political Economy. Fairfield, NJ: Augustus M. Kelley.Google Scholar
Mills, Frederick C. 1924. Statistical Methods Applied to Business and Economics. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Mills, Frederick C. 1952. “Productivity and Economic Progress.” Occasional Paper No. 38. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Minhas, Bagicha. 1963. An International Comparison of Factor Cost and Factor Use. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1991. “The When, the How and the Why of Mathematical Expression in the History of Economics Analysis.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, no. 1 (Winter): 145–57.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Wesley. 1929. “A Review.” In Recent Economic Changes, edited by the Committee on Recent Economic Changes of the President’s Conference on Unemployment, Vol. 1, 845–914. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Wesley. 1936. Retrospect and Prospect 1920–1936. New York: NBER. www.nber.org/chapters/c12282.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Wesley. 1939. The National Bureau Enters Its Twentieth Year. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Wesley, King, Willford, Macauley, Frederick, and Knauth, Oswald. 1921. Income in the United States: Its Amount and Distribution 1909–1919, 2 Vols. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary S. 1990. The History of Econometric Ideas. Cambridge, UK: The Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary S. and Rutherford, Malcom. 1998. From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Mundlak, Yair. 1961. “Empirical Production Function Free of Management Bias.” Journal of Farm Economics 43, no. 1 (Feb.): 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, William G. 1994. “Intellectual Breakthrough.” In Earl O Heady: His Impact on Agricultural Economics, edited by Langley, James, Vocke, Gary, and Whiting, Larry, 24–8. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard N. 1964. “Aggregate Production Functions and Medium-Range Growth Projections.” The American Economic Review 54, no. 5 (Sep.): 575–606.Google Scholar
Nerlove, Marc. 2001. “Zvi Griliches, 1930–1999: A Critical Appreciation.” The Economic Journal 111, no. 472: F422–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, William H. 1948. Labor Productivity Functions in Meat Packing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nittamo, Olivi. 1958. “The Development of Productivity in Finnish Industry.” Productivity Measurement Review 15 (Nov.): 30–41.Google Scholar
Olson, Ernest. 1948. “Factors Affecting International Differences in Production.” The American Economic Review 38, no. 2 (May): 502–22.Google Scholar
Page, Eric. 1994. “Obituary: Hollis B. Chenery Dies at 77; Economist for the World Bank.” New York Times. Sep. 5, 1994.Google Scholar
Parikh, Kirit, Srinivasan, T., and Tendulkar, S.. 2005. “To ‘Ustad’, with Love: A Tribute to Bagicha Singh Minhas.” Economic and Political Weekly 40, no. 44/45: 4670–3.Google Scholar
Phelps Brown, E. H. 1957. “The Meaning of the Fitted Cobb–Douglas Production Function.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 71: 546–60.Google Scholar
Phelps, Edmund S. 1962. “The New View of Investment: A Neoclassical Analysis.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 76, no. 4 (Nov.): 548–67.Google Scholar
Pigou, Arthur C. 1932 [1920]. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan and Co. www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Pigou/pgEW57.htmlGoogle Scholar
Plaxico, James S. 1955. “Problems of Factor-Product Aggregation in Cobb–Douglas Value Productivity Analysis.” Journal of Farm Economics 37, no. 4 (Nov.): 664–75.Google Scholar
Porter, Theodore. 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reder, Melvin W. 1943. “An Alternative Interpretation of the Cobb–Douglas Function.” Econometrica 11, no. 3/4 (Jul.–Oct.): 259–64.Google Scholar
Reder, Melvin W. 1982. “Chicago Economics: Permanence and Change.” Journal of Economic Literature 20, no. 1 (Mar.): 1–38.Google Scholar
Redman, John C. 1954. “Problems and Possible Solutions in Determining Input-Output Relationships in Agricultural Enterprises.” Journal of Farm Economics 36, no. 5 (Dec.): 1024–33.Google Scholar
Rowe, J. W. F. 1934. “Review of The Theory of Wages.” The Economic Journal 44, no. 176 (Dec.): 684–7.Google Scholar
Rutherford, Malcolm. 2005. “‘Who’s Afraid of Arthur Burns?’: The NBER and the Foundations.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 27, no. 2 (June): 109–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, Malcolm. 2011. The Institutionalist Movement in American Economics, 1918–1947: Science and Social Control. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1979. “Paul Douglas’s Measurement of Production Functions and Marginal Productivities.” The Journal of Political Economy 87, no. 5, Part 1 (Oct.): 923–39.Google Scholar
Schmookler, Jacob. 1951. Invention and Economic Development. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest/UMI (Publication No. 0007813).Google Scholar
Schmookler, Jacob. 1952. “The Changing Efficiency of the American Economy, 1869–1938.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 34, no. 3 (Aug.): 214–31.Google Scholar
Schultz, Henry. 1929. “Marginal Productivity and the General Pricing Process.” The Journal of Political Economy 37, no. 5 (Oct.): 505–51.Google Scholar
Schultz, Theodore W. 1956. “Reflections on Agricultural Production, Output and Supply.” Journal of Farm Economics 38, no. 3 (Aug.): 748–62.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven and Schaffer, Simon. 1985. Leviathan and the Air Pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, William H. 1941. Finished Commodities since 1879: Output and Its Composition. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Siegel, Irving H. 1951. “Letter to the Editor.” The American Statistician 5, no. 5 (Dec.): 12–13.Google Scholar
Siegel, Irving H. 1961. “On the Design of Consistent Output and Input Indexes for Productivity Measurement.” In Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Output, Input, and Productivity Measurement, 23–46. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Slichter, Sumner. 1928. “Economic and Social Aspects of Increased Productive Efficiency – Discussion.” The American Economic Review 18, no. 1, Supplement (Mar.): 166–70.Google Scholar
Smith, Victor E. 1945a. “Nonlinearity in the Relation between Input and Output: The Canadian Automobile Industry, 1918–1930.” Econometrica 13, no. 3 (Jul.): 260–72.Google Scholar
Smith, Victor E. 1945b. “The Statistical Production Function.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 59, no. 4 (Aug.): 543–62.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. 1956. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 70, no. 1 (Feb.): 65–94.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. 1957. “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function.” Review of Economics and Statistics 39, no. 3 (Aug.): 312–20.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. 1958a. “A Skeptical Note on the Constancy of Relative Shares.” The American Economic Review 48, no. 4 (Sep.): 618–31.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. 1958b. “Technical Progress and Production Functions: Reply.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 40, no. 4 (Nov.): 411–13.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. 1960. “Investment and Technical Progress.” In Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959, edited by Arrow, K. J., Karlin, S., and Suppes, P., 89–104. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. 1962. “Technical Progress, Capital Formation, and Economic Growth.” The American Economic Review 52, no. 2 (May): 76–86.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. 2001. “After Technical Progress and the Aggregate Production Function.” In New Developments in Productivity Analysis, edited by Hulten, Charles R., Dean, Edwin R., and Harper, Michael J., 173–8. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stern, Boris. 1927. “Productivity of Labor in the Glass Industry.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin 441. Washington, DC: USGPO.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1941. Production and Distribution Theories: The Formative Period. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1961. “Economic Problems in Measuring Changes in Productivity.” In Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Output, Input, and Productivity Measurement, 47–78. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Richard. 1939. “Review of Commodity Flow and Capital Formation, by Simon Kuznets.” Economic Journal 49 (June): 308–9.Google Scholar
Syverson, Chad. 2001. “What Determines Productivity?” Journal of Economic Literature 49, no. 2 (June): 326–65.Google Scholar
Terborgh, George. 1939. “Estimated Expenditures for New Durable Goods.” Federal Reserve Bulletin 25 (Sep.): 731–6.Google Scholar
Thomas, Woodlief. 1927a. “The Growth of Production and the Rising Standard of Living.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York 12, no. 3, Stabilizing Business (July): 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Woodlief. 1927b. “Construction of an Index Number of Production.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 22, no. 159 (Sep.): 315–30.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, J. 1942. “Professor Douglas’ Production Function.” Review of the International Statistical Institute 10, no. 1/2: 37–48.Google Scholar
Tintner, Gerhard. 1944a. “A Note on the Derivation of Production Functions from Farm Records.” Econometrica 12, no. 1 (Jan.): 26–34.Google Scholar
Tintner, Gerhard. 1944b. “An Application of the Variate Difference Method to Multiple Regression.” Econometrica 12, no. 2 (Apr.): 97–113.Google Scholar
Tintner, Gerhard and Brownlee, O. H.. 1944. “Production Functions Derived from Farm Records.” Journal of Farm Economics 26, no. 3 (Aug.): 566–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tukey, John W. 1962. “The Future of Data Analysis.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33, no. 1 (March): 1–67.Google Scholar
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1927. “Comparisons of Employment and Productivity in Manufacturing Industries, 1919–1925.” Monthly Labor Review 24 (May): 16–18.Google Scholar
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1928. “Productivity of Labor in Merchant Blast Furnaces.” Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin 474. Washington, DC: USGPO.Google Scholar
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1931. “Technological Changes in the Cigar Industry and Their Effects on Labor.” Monthly Labor Review 33 (Dec.): 1275–81.Google Scholar
Valavanis-Vail, Stefan. 1955. “An Econometric Model of Growth: U. S. A. 1869–1953.” The American Economic Review 45, no. 2 (May): 208–21.Google Scholar
Viner, Jacob. 1952 [1931]. “Cost Curves and Supply Curves.” In Readings in Price Theory, edited by Boulding, K. and Stigler, George, 198–232. Chicago: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
Vining, Rutledge and Koopmans, T.. 1949. “Koopmans on the Choice of Variables to Be Studied and the Methods of Measurement (with Response and Rejoinder).” The Review of Economics and Statistics 31, no. 2 (May): 77–94.Google Scholar
Waite, Warren. 1936. “Combination of Factors of Different Efficiency.” Journal of Farm Economics 18, no. 4 (Oct.): 743–5.Google Scholar
Wall, Burton. 1948. “A Cobb–Douglas Function for the United States Manufacturing and Mining, 1920–1940.” In “Report of the Chicago Meeting, December 27–30, 1947.” 211–13. Econometrica 16, no. 2 (Apr.): 199–215.Google Scholar
Walters, A. A. 1963a. “Production and Cost Functions: An Econometric Survey.” Econometrica 31, no. 1-2 (Jan.-Apr.): 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, A. A. 1963b. “A Note on Economies of Scale.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 45, no. 4 (Nov.): 425–7.Google Scholar
Warren, Stanley W. 1936. “Statistical Analysis in Farm Management Research.” Journal of Farm Economics 18, no. 1: 169–79.Google Scholar
Wasson, R. C., Musgrave, J. C., and Harkins, C.. 1970. “Alternative Estimates of Fixed Business Capital in the United States, 1925–1968.” Survey of Current Business 50 (Apr.): 18–36.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Richard G. 1950. “New England Dairy Farm Management Project as an Example of the Operating Unit Approach to Farm Management Analysis.” Journal of Farm Economics 32, no. 2 (May): 201–15.Google Scholar
Woirol, Gregory R. 2006. “New Data, New Issues. The Origins of the Technological Unemployment Debate.” History of Political Economy 38, no. 3 (Fall): 473–96.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeff. 2009. “On Estimating Firm-Level Production Functions Using Proxy Variables to Control for Unobservables.” Economics Letters 104, no. 3 (Sep.) 112–14.Google Scholar
Working, E. J. 1927. “What Do Statistical ‘Demand Curves’ Show?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 41, no. 2: 212–35.Google Scholar
Yarrow, Andrew L. 2010. Measuring America: How Economic Growth Came to Define American Greatness in the Late Twentieth Century. Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Yotopoulos, Panos A. and Nugent, Jeffrey B.. 1976. Economics of Development – Empirical Investigations. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
You, Jong Keun. 1968. “Embodied and Disembodied Technical Progress in the United States, 1929–1968.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 58, no. 1 (Feb.): 123–7.Google Scholar