[Searching for Hayek's] The maintenance of Capital (Economica, 1935)

지은이: F.A. Hayek,
출처: "The maintenance of Capital", Economica, August 1935, p. 241
자료: Jstor;

※ Some sources mentioning the above essay of Hayek:

CF. Hayek and Lachmann and the Complexity of Capital (Peter Lewin, ??)

• Hayek F. A. (1935b) ‘The Maintenance of Capital’ Economica 2; reprinted from Hayek, F. A. (1939a), 83-134; another source says its pages in Economica 2 are pp. 241-276.
• Hayek, F.A.(1939a), Profits, Interest and Investment, London: Routledge

CF. Maintaining Capital Intact (M. Scott, Oxford Economic Papers 1984): only the 1st page is available.

CF. The Hayek/Knight Capital Controversy: The Irrelevance of Roundaboutness, or Purging Processes in Time? (Avi J. Cohen, (Duke) History of Political Economy, 2003)

cf. Why Didn't Hayek Review Keynes's General Theory? A Partial Answer (Susan Howson, (Duke) History of Political Economy 2001): no content available; subscription required

* * *

※ Some distant mentioning about it:

dCF. Keynes, The General Theory: Chapter 4

(...) Taking a page out of Hayek (Keynes cites Hayek's 1935 paper, "The Maintenance of Capital"), Keynes further suggests that measuring the net increase in output is difficult, because we cannot distinguish between what is needed to replace "capital wastages" (capital used during the process of production) and net output. Here we also see the direction Keynes is driving at: he wants to look at value, not the physical make-up of the capital stock; (...)

dCF. Lachmann, TMEP: Chapter 4 (from the Blog, Economic Thought)

dCF. Hayek's Early Work (from the Blog, Economic Thought)

(...) Essentially, the Ricardo Effect states that a decrease in consumption will increase real wages, enticing firms to purchase labour-saving capital goods. This, in turn, will create a demand for the parts necessary to manufacture and maintain these machine (see "Investment that Raises the Demand for Capital"ㅡit's implied). We can still think about it in terms of widening and lengthening, although by this time Hayek had moved beyond Jevons' triangle, but this is much more complicated than what he had brought to light in Price and Production. Where widening refers to an increase in output in a particular stage (of production), and lengthening to creation of more stages, we can see now that the Ricardo Effect entails changes in the ^type^ of output produced.

(...) The Mises-Hayek theory is very different from the Ricardo Effect, and is essentially a different phenomenon. Whereas the Ricardo Effect explains a shift in profit lines from changes in the propensity to consume, the Mises-Hayek theory details shifts in profit lines resulting from injections of new money. So, the propensity to consume is almost irrelevant: it could increase, decrease, or stay the same. Hayek actually argues that consumption will rise during the boom process (see, for instance, his response to Sraffa's 1932 critique of Prices and Production), because new money will ultimately trickle to the original factors of production, viz. labor. The problem, in any case, is that a cessation of the introduction of new money (at an accelerating pace) will eliminate these new profit lines, thereby rendering dependent firms unprofitable. It doesn't necessarily mean that firms, in general, are substituting labor-intensive techniques for capital-intensive alternatives.

It invites a criticism of Hayek's work.

in Profits, Interest and Investment, Hayek ^does^ link the Ricardo Effect to his theory of the business cycle. He does so indirectly. His main argument against consumption-stimulating policies during the recovery is that this will require a shift of employment from the production of labor-saving capital to labor-intensive capital, meaning that presumably the boom is characterized by a shift to the manufacturing of labor-saving capital goods. I don't think this is consistent with Hayek's earlier work, and it's inconsistent with the data. I think a defense of saving during the bust is better prepared by meshing the general points behind "Investment that Raises the Demand for Capital" and "the Maintenance of Capital," with the knowledge that there exists a shortage of capital goods (although, a decrease in consumption will still change profitably in favor of machinery meant for capital-intensive production). (...)

dCF. Some Thoughts on Hayek (from the Blog, The Radical Subjectivist)

(...) It was not until I read Lachmann that I did find an appreciation for Hayek. I think it is safe to say that Hayekian ideas were the starting blocks to radical subjectivism (and maybe there is even a case to consider radical subjectivists as radical Hayekians). Lachmann clearly appreciated Hayekian treatment of capital, and found Hayek to be a key inspiration in the field of capital. In The Maintenance of Capital, Hayek concluded capital could not be measurable due to expectations. This claim on capital was stated far before the Cambridge debates on capital, which concluded that capital was not measurable, but for different reasons that that of the subjectivist perspective. George Shackle, in the acknowledgements of Epistemics and Economics, credits Hayek for being an early inspiration, especially on the topic of knowledge, which Shackle cites Hayek’s awesome paper Economics and Knowledge. (...)

* * *

vdCF. Capital Concepts as Insights into the Maintenance and Neglect of Infrastructure (JOHN BRAeTLAND, The Independent Review 2010)