A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF RESWITCHING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52195/pm.v18i1.710Abstract
The classical Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) is based on an inverse relationship between the so-called Average Period of Production (APP) or ‘roundaboutness’ and the interest rate. According to Böhm-Bawerk (1884 [1891]), the APP is the weighted average time that a unit of labor is locked up in the production process1; moreover, there is a positive relationship between savings (the ‘subsistence fund’) and the APP: the higher the latter the higher the former, which implies an inverse relationship between interest rates and the APP. Thus, a lower interest rate will lead to a higher APP ceteris paribus.
Hayek (2008) based his Hayekian triangles on Böhm-Bawerk’s work: a lower (higher) interest rate leads to a more (less) rounda- bout structure of production, increasing (decreasing) the APP. Including Mises’s (1921) business cycle theory into the analysis, whenever the interest rate is pushed lower than its ‘natural level’, either by the central bank or the banking system, there is an unsus- tainable extension of the APP that will generate an economic boom; the crisis will irremediably follow, as the APP will pull back towards its natural level.
From this brief characterization of the ABCT, it is easy to notice the key role of the inverse relationship between interest rates and roundaboutness; without it, there is no connection from changes in interest rates and roundaboutness, and the ABCT falls apart. The reswitching of techniques is precisely a counterexample to that relationship, as it claims there are situations in which lower interest rates do not lead to more roundabout productive struc- tures.
The organization of this paper is as follows: the next section describes the reswitching of techniques as stated by Samuelson (1966) and the implication for the classical ABCT, based on a phys- ical measure of roundaboutness; section 3 analyzes the alternative of applying corporate finance to the ABCT following Cachanosky and Lewin (2014). Section 4 is a financial analysis of Samuelson’s example, argues why modified duration should replace Böhm- Bawerk’s APP as a measure of roundaboutness, and shows why it does not represent a paradox to the ABCT when the financial approach is used. Sections 5 and 6 address the question from two additional perspectives: a neoclassical with fully flexible prices but fixed techniques and the Austrian related dynamic efficiency.
References
Böhm-Bawerk, E. V. (1884). The Positive Theory of Capital. New York: G. E. Stechert & Co. [1891]
Boulding, K. (1936). ‘Time and Investment: A Reply.’ Economica 3 (12): 440–442. https://doi.org/10.2307/2549249.
Cachanosky, N., & Lewin, P. (2014). ‘Roundaboutness is not a Mys- terious Concept: A Financial Application to Capital Theory.’ Review of Political Economy 26 (4): 648–665. doi:10.1080/09538259.2014.957475.
Cohen, A. J. (2010). ‘Capital Controversy From Bhohm-Bawerk to Bliss: Badly Posed or Very Deep Questions? Or What “We” Can Learn From Capital Controversy Even If You Don’t Care Who Won.’ Journal of the History of Economic Thought 32 (1): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S105383720999040X
Fratini, S. M. (2019a). ‘A note on re-switching and the neo-Austrian concept of the average period of production.’ The Review of Aus- trian Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-0432-0
— (2019b). ‘Re-switching and the Austrian business-cycle theory: A rejoinder’ The Review of Austrian Economics. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11138-019-00467-8
Garrison, R. W. (2005). ‘Reflections on Reswitching and rounda- boutness’. Money and Markets: Essays in Honor of Leland B . Yeager. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203799246.
Hayek, F. A. (2008). Prices and Productions and Other Works. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Hicks, J. R. (1953). Value and Capital. London: Oxford University Press.
Huerta de Soto, J. (2010). The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency. London: Routledge.
Lewin, P., & Cachanosky, N. (2019). ‘Re-switching, the average period of production and the Austrian business-cycle theory: A comment on Fratini.’ The Review of Austrian Economics. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00460-1
Macaulay, F. R. (1938). Some Theoretical Problems Suggested by the Movement of Interest Rates, Bond Yields, and Stock Prices in the US Since 1856. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Mises, L. V. (1921). The Theory of Money and Credit. New Haven: Yale University Press [1953].
Rallo, J. R. (2010). ‘El Mito del Reswitching.’ https://www.juande- mariana.org/ijm-actualidad/analisis-diario/el-mito-del-re- switching. Accessed 23 January 2019.
Osborne, M., & Davidson, I. (2016). ‘The Cambridge capital contro- versies: contributions from the complex plane.’ Review of Politi- cal Economy 28 (2): 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2015.1129751
Samuelson, P. (1966). ‘A Summing up.’ Quarterly Journal of Econom- ics 80 (4): 568–583. doi:10.2307/1882916.
Sargan, J. D. (1955). ‘The Period of Production.’ Econometrica 23 (2): 151-165. https://doi.org/0012-9682(195504)23:2<151:TPOP> 2.0.CO;2-5
Sraffa, P. (1960). Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tuckman, B., & Serrat, A. (2012). Fixed Income Securities. New Jersey: Wiley Finance.
Vienneau, R. L. (2017). ‘The Choice of Technique with Multiple and Complex Interest Rates.’ Review of Political Economy 29 (3): 440– 453. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2017.1346039
