Business fixed investment spending: a critical survey of modeling strategies, empirical results, and policy implications
Business fixed investment spending: a critical survey of modeling strategies, empirical results, and policy implications
复制标题
企业固定投资支出：对建模策略、实证结果和政策影响的批判性调查
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1992
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Bob Chirinko
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bob Chirinko
这项研究提供了一个重要的审查文献的企业固定投资支出，并评估了目前的知识和未来的研究议程。为了对这一庞大的文献进行一些结构分析，调查是根据两个原则组织的。第一个分类模型的动态是否被引入到经济计量方程隐含或明确。为本次调查中讨论的所有模型开发了基准模型。第二个组织原则侧重于投资研究人员反复面临的四个重要问题（见第一节）。其中一些问题已经得到了相当好的解决，最新的模型在理论上是一致的，并隔离了预期和技术对计量经济学方程的影响。这样的成功在一定程度上是通过维持一些令人不安的限制来购买的，研究议程旨在扩大我们对公司及其经营沿着利润的看法。最后一个问题涉及价格相对于数量相对于冲击作为投资决定因素的相对重要性。虽然结果显然没有统一性，冲击的作用仍有待评估，但作者认为，总的来说，投资对价格的反应往往很小，相对于数量变量来说并不重要。应用计量经济学家面临的基本问题是，当可用的数据是非实验性的，并且具有有限的和噪声的变化时，如何生成和解释计量经济学证据。最直接的解决办法是获得更好的数据，但为公司收集可比数据是一项相当困难和昂贵的任务。另一种研究策略将使用复杂的统计技术来试图纠正各种困难。由于这些程序经常是基于大量的精确测量的数据样本，人们怀疑它们对应用工作的有用性。如果统计研究关注各种估计量的小样本特性，突出它们对非经典测量误差和困扰所有计量经济学方程的其他错误设定来源的鲁棒性，那么统计研究将特别具有信息性。正如在整个调查中所讨论的那样，利用理论提供的信息和限制可能是最有效的方法。显然，在需要维持的限制和需要测试的限制之间存在紧张关系。这些问题和许多其他问题将出现在实证应用中，只有在比较了许多不同模型的结果和假设之后，才会取得进展。没有一项研究，不管规范的一般性和数据的丰富性，将提供“最终”的测试。因此，明确的建模方法所培养的纪律性话语需要解释各种研究，并扩展我们对企业行为的理解。尽管有这些决定性的好处，我们对以前的投资研究的回顾和在整个调查中提到的许多警告提醒我们，在解释所有计量经济学工作时，“我们的知识有限”和适当的“谦逊”程度。
This study has offered a critical review of the literature on business fixed investment spending, and has assessed the current state of knowledge and future research agenda. To place some structure on this vast literature, the survey has been organized according to two principles. The first sorted models by whether dynamics were introduced into the econometric equation implicitly or explicitly. Benchmark models were developed for all of the models discussed in this survey. The second organizing principle focused on the four important issues (listed in Section I) that have been faced repeatedly by investment researchers. A number of these issues have been addressed reasonably well, and most recent models are theoretically consistent and isolate the effects of expectations and technology on the econometric equation. Such success has been purchased partly by maintaining a number of uncomfortable restrictions, and the research agenda aims to expand our view of the firm and the margins along which it operates. A final issue concerns the relative importance of prices vs. quantities vs. shocks as determinants of investment. While there is clearly no uniformity in the results and the role of shocks remains to be assessed, it appears to this author that, on balance, the response of investment to prices tend to be quite small and unimportant relative to quantity variables. The fundamental problem facing the applied econometrician is how to generate and interpret econometric evidence when the available data are non-experimental and have limited and noisy variation. The most direct solution would be to obtain better data, but collecting comparable data for firms is a rather difficult and expensive task. An alternative research strategy would use sophisticated statistical techniques to attempt to correct for various difficulties. Since these procedures are based frequently on large samples of spotlessly measured data, doubts exist about their usefulness for applied work. Statistical research would be particularly informative if it focused on the small sample properties of various estimators, highlighting their robustness to non-classical measurement error and other sources of misspecification that plague all econometric equations. As has been argued throughout this survey, exploiting the information and restrictions provided by theory is likely to be the most productive approach. Clearly there is a tension between the restrictions to maintain and those to test. These and many other problems will arise in empirical applications, and progress will occur only after comparing the results and assumptions from many different models. No single study, regardless of the generality of the specifications nor the richness of the data, will deliver "the" definitive test. As a result, the disciplined discourse fostered by an explicit modeling approach is needed for interpreting various studies and extending our understanding of firm behavior. Despite these decided benefits, our review of previous investment studies and the numerous caveats mentioned throughout this survey remind us of the "limits of our knowledge" and the degree of "humility" appropriate when interpreting all econometric work.