The function has been criticised for its lack of foundation. Cobb and Douglas were influenced by statistical evidence that appeared to show that labor and capital shares of total output were constant over time in developed countries; they explained this by statistical fitting
least-squares regression of their production function. It is now widely accepted that labor share is declining in industrialized economies. The production function contains a principal assumption that may not always provide the most accurate representation of a country's productive capabilities and supply-side efficiencies. This assumption is a "constant share of labor in output," which may not be effective when applied to cases of countries whose labor markets are growing at significant rates. Another issue within the fundamental composition the Cobb–Douglas production function is the presence of simultaneous equation bias. When competition is presumed, the simultaneous equation bias has impact on all function types involving firm decisions – including the Cobb–Douglas function. In some cases this simultaneous equation bias doesn't appear. However, it is apparent when least squares asymptotic approximations are used. However, many modern authors have developed models which give
microeconomically based Cobb–Douglas production functions, including many
New Keynesian models. It is nevertheless a mathematical mistake to assume that just because the Cobb–Douglas function applies at the microeconomic level, it also always applies at the
macroeconomic level. Similarly, it is not necessarily the case that a macro Cobb–Douglas applies at the disaggregated level. An early microfoundation of the aggregate Cobb–Douglas technology based on linear activities was dervied by Houthakker in a paper published in 1955. The Cobb–Douglas production function is inconsistent with modern empirical estimates of the elasticity of substitution between capital and labor, which suggest that capital and labor are gross complements. A 2021
meta-analysis of 3186 estimates concludes that "the weight of evidence accumulated in the empirical literature emphatically rejects the Cobb–Douglas specification." In a 1974 article, economist
Anwar Shaikh demonstrates that any economic data, together with the assumption of a constant share of production between capital and labor and respecting the assumption of constant returns to scale, can be expressed in the form of a Cobb-Douglas production function; he shows that the Cobb-Douglas function is in fact governed by algebraic relationships concerning the distribution of value added between capital and labor, and that the production function therefore does not ultimately rely on any genuine assumption about production itself. To demonstrate this, Anwar Shaikh constructs a Cobb-Douglas function based on fictitious data (data tracing the word “Humbug”), which is strongly correlated with the underlying fictitious production function (R² = .993). In the same article, he also shows that
Robert Solow’s article ‘Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function’ paved the way for the neoclassical approach in the economic analysis of growth, makes the same mistake." == Cobb–Douglas utilities ==