Capital Stock, Capital Services and the Use of Fuel Consumption Proxies: An Appraisal

  • Derek L. Bosworth


It has become fashionable in the recent economic literature to use electricity data as proxy for the consumption of capital services. Taylor (1967), for example, reported a high correlation across regions of the UK between electricity consumption and the stock of active capital. Heathfield (1972) has compared the consumption of electricity with the stock of capital in an attempt to derive measures of capital usage. Heathfield adopted the book value of the capital stock as a measure of the potential supply of capital services. More recently still, Moody (1974) and Bosworth (1974, 1976) have estimated neoclassical production functions using fuel proxies for the capital input. After comparing the results of using a traditional measure of the capital input with those of a proxy variable, Moody was able to conclude that electricity consumption was a better measure of the capital input than the book value of the capital stock.


Machine Tool Fuel Consumption Capital Stock Electricity Consumption Capital Input 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, F. G. and Miovic, P. (1968), ‘On Relative Fuel Efficiency and the Output Elasticity of Energy Consumption in Western Europe’, Journal of Industrial Economics vol. 17.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, R. G. D. (1968), Macro-Economic Theory (London: Macmillan).Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, A. (1974), Structural Change in the British Economy: 1948–68 vol. 12 of Stone, R. (ed.) A Programme for Growth (Chap-man and Hall).Google Scholar
  4. Bosworth, D. (1974), ‘Production Functions and Skill Requirements’, in J. S. Wabe (ed.), Problems in Manpower Forecasting (Saxon House).Google Scholar
  5. Bosworth, D. (1976), Production Functions: A Theoretical and Empirical Study (Saxon House).Google Scholar
  6. Garegnani, P. (1970), ‘Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 37.Google Scholar
  7. Heathfield, D. (1972), ‘The Measurement of Capital Usage Using Elec-tricity Consumption Data for the U.K.’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society vol. 132.Google Scholar
  8. Moody, C. E. (1974), ‘The Measurement of Capital Services by Electrical Energy’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol. 36.Google Scholar
  9. Phelps, E. S. (1962), ‘The New View of Investment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 76.Google Scholar
  10. Robinson, J. (1970), ‘Capital Theory up to Date’, Canadian Journal of Economics, vol. 13.Google Scholar
  11. Samuelson, P. A. (1962), ‘Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 39.Google Scholar
  12. Sato, K. (1974), ‘The Neoclassical Postulate and the Technology Frontier in Capital Theory’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 88.Google Scholar
  13. Solow, R. M. (1956), ‘The Production Function and the Theory of Cap-ital’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 23.Google Scholar
  14. Solow, R. M. (1960), ‘Investment and Technical Progress’, in Arrow et al. (eds.) Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences (Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
  15. Taylor, J. (1967), ‘A Surrogate for Regional Estimates of Capital Stock’, Bulletin of Economic Research, vol. 29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Derek L. Bosworth 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek L. Bosworth
    • 1
  1. 1.Loughborough University of TechnologyUK

Personalised recommendations