Resources Policy 28 (2002) 95–104

www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

Is there a common metals demand curve?

M. Evans ∗, Andrew C. Lewis
Materials Research Centre, School of Engineering, University of Wales, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales, UK

Received 3 September 2002; received in revised form 1 October 2002; accepted 6 June 2003

Abstract

Previous studies have identified a single, stable and strong correlation between the price of metals and their consumption, such
that low priced metals are always used in large amounts and visa versa. Some have interpreted this as evidence that metals share
a common demand curve so that a single price elasticity of demand exists. This paper reviews and tests this hypothesis against a
number of other possible explanations, including the idea that the relationship is an empirical curiosity. Modifications to the demand
curve were tested by allowing metals to have different intercepts and price elasticities. The results from this analysis suggest that
metals do not share a common demand curve and that the correlation identified between the price of metals and their level of
consumption is an empirical curiosity. As such, the singular price elasticities published in past papers should not be used for
assessing future rates of metals substitution.
 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Common metals demand; Price elasticity; Over/under pricing

Introduction time series data. Such studies have identified an inverse

The choice of which metal to use in the manufacture
of a product is governed to a large extent by the material
properties of the metal in relation to the application, but
a dominant if not overriding factor is the primary metal
price. For example, material costs can account for up to
60% of the total production cost of an average passenger
car manufactured in the UK (Takechi, 1996; Johnson,
1997). Currently, the price of aluminium is up to six
times more expensive than steel per tonne and this has
helped the steel industry to protect its market share in
the automotive sector. A switch to aluminium would
involve a considerable reinvestment in new production
lines that have relatively long lives and so it is important
for automotive companies to have some idea on likely
future price movements for competing materials.
Therefore, and over the past 25 years, a variety of
different approaches to the study of metals demand and
their prices have been used. This paper concentrates on
those approaches that have combined cross-sectional and
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1792-295-699; fax: +44-1792-
295-244.
E-mail address: m.evans@swansea.ac.uk (M. Evans).
correlation between a number of metal prices and their
level of consumption
Pit ⫽ atCbitt (1)
where Pit is the price of metal i in year t (in $/tonne)
and Cit is the annual world consumption of metal i in
year t (in thousands of tonnes). bt is the inverse of the
price elasticity of demand and its value depends upon
the ease with which substitution of one metal by another
metal can occur. If bt is low, this may reflect easy substi-
tution, but if bt is high, this may reflect more difficult
substitution. Further, past studies have found the bt
changes little over time so that this empirical relationship
also appears to be very stable over time. However, why
there should be such an overall relationship for a wide
variety of metals is difficult to understand. This paper
reviews a number of possible explanations, including the
idea that such metals share a common demand curve and
that the above relationship could simply be an empirical
curiosity. To ensure that the above overall relationship
for metals is not inappropriately used for demand and
price forecasting these interpretations need to be for-
mally tested. This paper therefore proposes and carries
out a number of tests for the hypothesis of a common
metals demand curve.

0301-4207/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0301-4207(03)00026-6
96 M. Evans, A.C. Lewis / Resources Policy 28 (2002) 95–104
In order to meet these objectives, the paper is struc-
tured as follows. The next section reviews a number of
approaches to the study of metals demand and their
prices. Emphasis is placed on those studies that have
estimated (1) and a number of different explanations for
such an overall relationship are given. The following
section then proposes a number of tests to help differen-
tiate between these opposing explanations. This is then
followed by a section describing the origins of the data
used in this paper. The results of various tests of the
common metals demand hypothesis are then given in the
penultimate section. Conclusions are then drawn.
Past approaches to studying metals demand and
their prices
Time series and other studies
Where data are available, detailed input–output analy-
sis has been carried out (Myers, 1986) to identify the
influence of materials substitution and new technology
on metals demand. When data are less disaggregated,
authors such as Tilton (1990), Tilton et al. (1996), Tilton
and Fanyu (1999), Valdes (1990), and Evans (1996)
have made use of the intensity of use technique to
explain metals demand in terms of movements in the
material composition of products and the product com-
position of national income. The former of these is in
turn related to technological change and material prices
whilst the latter is related to structural changes taking
place within a given economy.
A more common approach to analysing metals
demand is through the estimation and specification of
either production functions (Slade, 1981) or demand
functions. In the latter category, Bozdogan and Hartman
(1979) assumed that copper demand was a function of
the copper price, the price of substitutes (mainly
aluminium) and gross domestic product. In a more recent
study, Figuerola-Ferretti and Gilbert (2001) modelled,
using time series techniques, copper, tin and zinc con-
sumption as a function of technological change, changes
in industrial production, changes in real prices and price
volatility. In a study by Labson and Crompton (1993),
the intensity of use and demand function approaches
were brought together using the cointegration method-
ology.
Cross-section and time series studies
Recently, a number of studies have been carried out
that involve the estimation of demand functions from
panel data sets that contain a combination of time series
and cross-section date. The first appeared in 1972, when
Hughes (1972) identified the following inverse corre-
lation between the price, in 1972, of 14 different metals
(aluminium, copper, chrome, gold, iron, lead, niobium,
nickel, platinum, silver, tin, titanium, vanadium, and
zinc) and their levels of consumption in 1972
ln(Pi) ⫽ ln(a) ⫹ bln(Ci) (2)
Later, Nutting (1977) supplemented the data of
Hughes (1972) with his own for the year 1977 and ident-
ified exactly the same relationship. Like Hughes before
him, the price elasticity of demand for these 14 metals
was estimated to be around 1.5 (i.e. b = 0.66). As antici-
pated for a cross-section model of this nature, Nutting
found that the value for a in 1977 was higher than that
estimated by Hughes reflecting the influence of world
inflation over this period. However, the value of b
changes little between the two years.
Jacobson and Evans (1985) extended this type of
analysis. They collected data for 16 different commercial
metals (tellurium, antimony, magnesium, lead, zinc, pig
iron, aluminium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, gold, mer-
cury, nickel, selenium, silver and tin) over a period of
20 years—from 1961 to 1980. They found that the first
six of these metals fell consistently close to a series of
straight lines given by
ln(Pit) ⫽ ln(at) ⫹ btln(Cit) (3)
for each of the 20 years. They also found that the slopes
of these lines remained virtually constant from year to
year. The mean value for bt was estimated to be ⫺0.357
(with a standard error of 0.026). Taking 1980 as an illus-
tration, Jacabson and Evans’s estimate of (3) was
ln(Pi) ⫽ 5.43 ⫺ 0.369ln(Ci)
(0.10) (0.017) Standard error
54.3 21.71 t statistic
R2 = 99.2%.
This relationship between the average price and the
annual consumption of metals was further studied by
Georgentalis et al. (1990) over a nine-year period from
1975 to 1983 using the same 14 metals that Nutting stud-
ied. They also found that the slopes of these lines
remained virtually constant from year to year. The mean
value for bt in (3) was estimated to be ⫺0.698 (with a
standard error of 0.092). Their estimate of (3) for
1980 was
ln(Pi) ⫽ 5.693 ⫺ 0.714ln(Ci)
(0.323) (0.105) Standard error
17.63 6.80 t statistic
R2 = 79.6%, DW = 1.83.
They also found that over this period, the value for
ln(at) in (3) could be explained using measures of world
inflation and industrial activity
ln(at) ⫽ 1.249ln(P̄t) ⫹ 1.582ln(Īt)
where P̄t was taken to be the wholesale price index for
all countries and Īt, world economic activity. Indeed,
 M. Evans, A.C. Lewis / Resources Policy 28 (2002) 95–104
these two variables accounted for 99.9% of the variation
in the estimated values for ln(at). (The authors did not
supply standard errors and t statistics for each
parameter.)
MacAvoy (1988) carried out a study over the period
1960–1986 for seven metals (copper, lead, aluminium,
zinc, iron, nickel and molybdenum). The price level equ-
ation used by MacAvoy took the form
(Pit) ⫽ b0i ⫹ b1(P̄t) ⫹ b2(Īt) ⫹ b3(Sit⫺1) ⫹ b4(ERt), (4)
where ER is the exchange rate and S is the metal stock
level. Such an equation is obtained as the competitive
equilibrium solution to a system of supply and
demand equations.
Interpretations
What stands out from these panel data studies is that
low priced metals are used in large amounts and high
priced metals are used in small amounts and this inverse
correlation appears to be remarkably stable over time.
Indeed, Nutting found it extremely surprising that such
a correlation should hold over five orders of magnitude
in relation to price and over eight orders of magnitude
in relation to consumption. The observations led him to
propose Nutting’s first law—“As the price of a metal
increases relative to other metals by a factor of two, the
consumption decreases relative to other metals by a fac-
tor of three”. Such a law implies causation and that met-
als have a common price elasticity of demand so that
one interpretation of the above overall relationship is that
all metals have a common demand curve.
This is visualised in Fig. 1 for the simpler case of
three metals, labelled A–C, in any one year. Each metal
has a different level of supply, but a common demand
curve, giving the three equilibriums that determine the
observed price–consumption pairings for each metal.
Note that in this illustration, the world supply or pro-
duction of a metal is predetermined by exogenous factors
Fig. 1. A common metals demand curve.
97
such as mining conditions and the economic consider-
ations of previous periods. In such a case, the world mar-
ket price adjusts to a predetermined level of metal pro-
duction so that price, rather than consumption, is the
correct dependent variable.
For a common demand curve to exist between metals,
all the metals placed on it must be equally good substi-
tutes in each of their main end use markets. Georgentalis
et al. understood that this in part may be true for they
stated “if gold were as cheap as copper, it would be used
in place of copper”. Even more striking is the case of
aluminium over the last 130 years. Prior to the introduc-
tion of the Hall–Heroult process for the production of
aluminium in 1876, aluminium was actually more
expensive than gold and the corresponding production
of aluminium was less than that of gold (147 tonnes of
gold compared to 1 ton of aluminium in 1870). Now
aluminium is the second most widely used metal and its
price is just about that to be expected from the substi-
tution of the annual consumption in Nutting’s law.
However, and at the theoretical level, it seems
unlikely that all the 14 metals considered by Nutting are
equally good substitutes in all their main markets. Con-
sider, for example, aluminium. Its main markets are
packaging (30% in 1994), building (17%) and transpor-
tation (26%). In all these markets, steel is a very close
substitute, but titanium is only a close substitute in trans-
portation. Apart from copper, that competes with alu-
minium in the electronics sector, none of the other 14
metals studied by Nutting can be considered as a substi-
tute for aluminium. Consider also the example of copper.
Its main markets are electrical (22% in 1994), construc-
tion (42%) and transport (13%). Whilst aluminium and
gold are close substitutes in electrical applications, they
are not for construction, where plastics would be a pre-
ferred substitute in plumbing due to weight consider-
ations. The main market for gold is jewellery (73% in
1994), and here, the close substitutes are platinum and
silver. In the other main markets for gold (electronics at
14%), the only close substitutes are tin and nickel. As a
final example, consider lead. In 1994, 84% of lead use
were in batteries with the only close substitutes being
nickel and zinc.
It is clear from the above examples, that whilst some
metals might be easily interchangeable with some other
metals if the price was right, it is not clear, at the theor-
etical level, whether the actually substitutional possi-
bilities are strong enough to generate a common metals
demand curve—even for such metals.
Another possible explanation for the stable inverse
relationship between metal price and consumption is that
the value for bt in (1) is an average value of the exponent
in year t for each individual metal, that is to say, an
overall index of the ease of substitution within the family
of metals considered. Some support for this view is
given by the Jacobson and Evans study mentioned
98 M. Evans, A.C. Lewis / Resources Policy 28 (2002) 95–104
above, where a value for bt of about 1/3 was found for
the select group of six base metals. This result may rep-
resent the lower bound solution.
This average interpretation for bt in (1) can be looked
at from a slightly different perspective, namely that of
a statistical curiosity. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 again
for the simpler case of three metals, labelled A–C, in
any one year. Unlike Fig. 1, there is no longer a common
metals demand curve. Each metal has its own price elas-
ticity of demand that is different from the other metals.
Each metals supply and demand function determines the
three equilibriums that generate the observed price–con-
sumption pairings for each metal. When a best fit line
is then put through the observed price–consumption data,
a line similar to the shown mongrel function will be
obtained. Such a function is neither a demand nor a sup-
ply curve but a mixture of the two—even though it looks
for all the world as if a common demand function has
been estimated. Eq. (2) can be interpreted as such a mon-
grel function, so that the results of Nutting, Jacobson
and Evans and Georgentalis et al. can be considered as
spurious regressions. Indeed, the slope of such a mongrel
function may well turn out to be the average for all the
individual metal demand functions. Then, if the slopes
of the individual demand curves are not too different
from the mongrel function, the slope of this latter func-
tion may provide a reasonable estimate of substitution
rates for all metals following price changes.
A final interpretation for the observed stable inverse
correlation between metal price and consumption is that
such a relationship actually identifies a minimum econ-
omic price for metal production at a given level of con-
sumption. As briefly described above, Jacobson and
Evans estimated (3) using data for six metals (tellurium,
antimony, magnesium, lead, zinc, pig iron), which they
called the base metals. Over time they observed that
these six metals consistently lay close to such a fitted
line with bt = ⫺0.357. They called this the base line.
This overriding stability of the base metals they put
Fig. 2. A mongrel function.
down to their common characteristics of being subject
to a steady demand, mainly from long established appli-
cations such as in heavy engineering and construction,
and the fact that their commercial ores are widely distrib-
uted and contain these metals in concentrates between
1% and 20%. As such, their extraction presents no real
problems. They suggest that all these factors combine to
produce lacklustre associations and help to encourage
their stable position in the market. They also explain
why these metals appear to establish the minimum econ-
omic price for metal production at a given level of con-
sumption.
As further evidence for this theory they noted that the
metals aluminium, cobalt, copper, gold, nickel, silver
and tin always had prices above the base line. They
accounted for this by showing that all these metals
(except aluminium) are obtained from ores with concen-
trates well below 1%. The extent to which prices lie
above the base line was therefore attributed to ease or
otherwise of extraction. Prices below the base line were
then interpreted as unstable prices which betray major
market weaknesses.
Empirical tests for differentiating between
competing theories
Over- and underpricing
If (3) represents a common metals demand curve, then
a metal whose price is above such a common demand
curve can be interpreted as a metal that is overpriced
(i.e. supply exceeds demand). Likewise, a metal whose
price is below the common demand curve could be inter-
preted as a metal that is underpriced (i.e. demand
exceeds supply over such a time span). However, such
over- or underpricing should not persist for prolonged
periods of time. Eventually, the forces of supply and
demand will ensure that markets equilibriate and so
prices should tend towards the common demand curve
over time. Unless, of course, (3) is a mongrel curve and
each metal has its own demand curve. Then prices can
be persistently above or below (3) depending upon each
metals supply and demand conditions.
Thus a simple test for a common demand curve, as
opposed to a mongrel function, is to plot the extent of
over- and underpricing over time and observe the tend-
ency (or lack there of) for such pricing to dissipate over
time. A tendency for a metals price to be continuously
above or below (3) is evidence to indicate that that there
is no common demand curve amongst metals.
Another test for a common metals demand curve
would be to generalise (3) and test the validity of such
a generalisation. For example, the following is a more
general specification for (3):
ln(Pit) ⫽ ln(ait) ⫹ btln(Cit). (5)
 M. Evans, A.C. Lewis / Resources Policy 28 (2002) 95–104
Under this specification, each metal has a common
price elasticity of demand but each metals demand curve
has a different intercept term. This specification is very
similar to a model estimated by MacAvoy (1988).
Another generalisation for (3) is
ln(Pit) ⫽ ln(at) ⫹ bitln(Cit)
Under this specification, each metal has a different
price elasticity of demand but each metals demand curve
has the same intercept term. Combining the above gener-
alisations leads to a specification in which each metal
has a different price elasticity and intercept term
ln(Pit) ⫽ ln(ait) ⫹ bitln(Cit)
The parameters of (5)–(7) can be estimated in a var-
iety of ways. If the aim is to make inferences about the
population of metals and minerals, then ai and bi should
be treated as random variables and the random effects
model of Balestra and Nerlove (1966) used. However,
in this paper, the authors are interested in making infer-
ences about only this set of 14 metals and so ai and bi
are treated as fixed. In such a fixed effects model, esti-
mation is carried out by introducing (see Maddala, 2001
for the econometric background and MacAvoy, 1988 for
an application to seven metals) dummy variables for
each metal. Under any of these generalisations, a test for
a common metals demand curve is now straight forward.
First the specification given by (5)–(7) must be esti-
mated. In this paper, this is done by letting
ln(ait) ⫽ a0 ⫹ a1ln(P̄t) ⫹ a2ln(Īt)
and by assuming that b is fixed over time (as all the
reviewed evidence above suggests). Of course, further
generalisation is then possible by allowing a1 and a2 to
vary by metal but such generalisations are not considered
in this paper.
(5) can now be estimated by applying the least squares
procedure to
冘
q consumption data, measured in metric tonnes, were col-
(Pit) ⫽ a01 ⫹ a0iDi ⫹ a1lnP̄t ⫹ a2lnĪt
i⫽2
⫹ bln Cit
where Di takes on a value of 1 when it refers to metal
i and zero otherwise. Thus, a0i measure the extent to
which a metals demand curve is shifted up or down rela-
tive to the first i = 1 metal, which is taken to be alu-
minium in this study. In total, there are q = 14 such
metals. Similarly, (6) can now be estimated by applying
the least squares procedure to
(Pit) ⫽ a0 ⫹ a1lnP̄t ⫹ a2lnĪt ⫹ b1 lnCit
冘
q Īt, world economic activity, was taken to be the index
⫹ bi DilnCit
i⫽2
99
Then, (7) can be estimated by applying the least squares
procedure to
冘
q
(Pit) ⫽ a01 ⫹ a0i Di ⫹ a1lnP̄t ⫹ a2lnĪt
i⫽2
(6)
冘
q
⫹ b1 lnCit ⫹ bi DilnCit (10)
i⫽2
The Student t statistic associated with each a0i in (8)
or the Student t statistic associated with each bi in (9),
or the t statistic associated with each a0i and bi in (10)
then provides a simple test for a common metals
(7) demand. Under specification (8), those metals with t stat-
istics for a0i below the 5% critical value can be taken
to have a metals demand curve whose intercept is the
same as that for aluminium. Under specification (9),
those metals with t statistics for bi below the 5% critical
value can be taken to have a metals demand curve that
is the same as that for aluminium, i.e. such metals have
the same price elasticity of demand as that for alu-
minium. Under specification (10) those metals with t
statistics for a0i and t statistics for bi below the 5% criti-
cal value can be taken to have a metals demand curve
that is the same as that for aluminium.
Origins of data
The 14 metals used for this study are the same as those
used by Georgentalis et al. They therefore ranged from
iron, the cheapest, to platinum, the most expensive, giv-
ing a wide range of prices and consumption. At the
world level, the annual consumption of a particular metal
in year t, Cit, was measured as
Cit ⫽ Prodit ⫾ ⌬Sit, (11)
where Prodit is the production of metal i in year t and
⌬Sit, the addition to the stock of metal i in year t. Such
(8) lected for each of the 14 metals over the period 1980–
1999 from annual issues of Metals Bulletin, Minerals
Handbook and Platinum. However, for iron, no con-
sumption data were available and so the production of
iron ore (Fe content) was used instead. Metal prices were
measured in US dollars per metric ton and were obtained
from various issues of International Financial Statistics
Yearbook (1980–1989), Metals Bulletin (1980–1989),
Minerals Handbook (1980–1989), and Platinum (1980–
1989).
World inflation, P̄t, was taken to be the wholesale
price index for all countries as published in various
(9) issues of International Financial Statistics Yearbook and
for industrial production (at constant value terms) for the
industrialised nations, again as published in International
100 M. Evans, A.C. Lewis / Resources Policy 28 (2002) 95–104

Financial Statistics Yearbook. Both these indices were Table 1

based at 1995. Values obtained by the current authors for the parameters ln(at) and
bt of (3) for the years 1980–1999

Year ln(at) at R2
Empirical results
1980 20.720 (1.478) –0.908 (0.109) 85.26
Comparisons with previous results 1981 20.216 (1.409) –0.884 (0.104) 85.74
1982 19.778 (1.421) –0.866 (0.105) 84.89
Fig. 3 contains price and consumption data for the 14 1983 19.735 (1.569) –0.863 (0.117) 82.05
1984 19.643 (1.535) –0.856 (0.113) 82.62
metals mentioned above for the year 1999. Also shown 1985 19.635 (1.542) –0.858 (0.113) 82.66
is the fit given by (3) to this set of data. The full set of 1986 19.828 (1.619) –0.872 (0.119) 81.74
regression results for this year is 1987 19.832 (1.712) –0.861 (0.126) 79.65
1988 20.033 (1.731) –0.855 (0.126) 79.24
ln(Pi) ⫽ 19.953 ⫺ 0.855ln(Ci) 1989 19.876 (1.653) –0.838 (0.121) 80.12
1.684 (0.121) Standard error
11.84 7.07 t statistic 1990 19.715 (1.672) –0.833 (0.122) 79.55
1991 19.607 (1.680) –0.837 (0.123) 79.47
R 2 = 80.48%. 1992 19.520 (1.730) –0.834 (0.127) 78.33
1993 19.527 (1.803) –0.843 (0.132) 77.27
It can be seen that after some 16 years since Georgen- 1994 19.714 (1.809) –0.846 (0.132) 77.40
talis et al. first published their results, there is still a very 1995 20.027 (1.716) –0.853 (0.125) 79.64
strong inverse correlation between metal price and metal 1996 19.945 (1.682) –0.848 (0.122) 80.05
consumption—with some 80.48% of the variation in 1997 19.990 (1.653) –0.848 (0.120) 80.76
1998 20.220 (1.577) –0.870 (0.114) 82.94
metal prices being explained by variations in metals con-
1999 19.953 (1.684) –0.855 (0.121) 80.48
sumption. However, the estimated value for bt appears
to be a little higher than the average value obtained by 1980–1999 19.876 (1.633) –0.856 (0.120)
Georgentalis et al. Table 1 gives the ln(at) and bt values (mean)
obtained for each of the remaining years from 1980 to
1999 (together with their standard errors and R2 values). R2 is the coefficient of determination measuring the percentage vari-
ation in ln(Pit) explained by variations in ln(Cit). Standard errors are
As can be seen, and in line with other studies in this
shown in parentheses.
area, they observed very little variation in the value for
bt over time and in fact none of the estimated bt values
were significantly different from each other.
be closer to ⫺0.74 over the period 1961–1980. Having
Fig. 4 compares the results shown in Table 1 with the
said that, when the two sets of bt values are plotted
bt estimates made by Georgentalis et al. It can be seen
alongside their respective and approximate 95% confi-
that for the overlap years 1980–1983, the current
dence intervals, as in Fig. 4, it becomes clear that the
authors’ estimates for bt are higher than those obtained
observed differences are not statistically significant. That
by Georgentalis et al. Reasons for this are difficult to
is, the confidence intervals for the two separate estimates
find because the original data used by Georgentalis et
of bt over the period 1980–1983 overlap and so there is
al. are no longer available. It is interesting to note that
not enough evidence to conclude that these two estimates
a similar observation was made by Jacobson and Evans
are actually different.
when comparing their work to that of Nutting. Recall
that for 1977, Nutting estimated bt to be ⫺0.67, but
Results of testing for a common metals demand curve
Jacobson and Evans found the average value for bt to
using over- and underpricing

Fig. 5 shows the extent of over- and underpricing

assuming a common metals demand curve. Under such
an assumption, a metal is said to be overpriced when its
price is consistently in excess of
ln(Pit) ⫽ ln(at) ⫹ btln(Cit),
and underpriced when it is consistently below such a
price. In Fig. 5, the percentage difference between a met-
als actual price and that given by (3) is plotted against
time. The values for at and bt in (3) that are used for
such calculations in each year are those shown in
Table 1.
Fig. 3. Metal price v. world consumption for 14 metals in 1999. If the assumption of a common metals demand curve
 M. Evans, A.C. Lewis / Resources Policy 28 (2002) 95–104 101

Fig. 4. Values for βt as obtained by Goergentalis et al. for the period 1975–1983 and by present authors for 1980–1999.

Fig. 5. (a) Extent of overpricing for aluminium, copper, iron and gold assuming a common metals demand curve. (b) Extent of overpricing for
nickel, zinc, silver and platinum assuming a common metals demand curve. (c) Extent of overpricing for titanium, vanadium, niobium and chromium
assuming a common metals demand curve. (d) Extent of overpricing for tin and lead assuming a common metals demand curve.

is correct, then the prices given by (3) can be interpreted
as market clearing prices. Overpricing then corresponds
to excess supply and underpricing, excess demand. Fig.
5a,c shows that the metals aluminium, copper, iron and
gold are all “overpriced” to a considerable extent for the
whole length of the sample, whilst the metals titanium,
vanadium, niobium and chromium are “underpriced” to
a considerable extent for the whole length of the sample.
Fig. 5b shows that the metals nickel, zinc, silver and
platinum also remained “overpriced” during the full
length of the sample period but to a lesser extent than
those metals shown in Fig. 5a. Whilst it is believed that
product markets rarely clear instantaneously following a
change in demand or supply conditions, it is highly
unlikely that the prices of all the metals shown in Fig.
5a,c could remain so far away from market clearing lev-
els for such long periods of time. It would therefore
appear that Fig. 5 provides some evidence to suggest
that these metals do not have a common demand curve.
Put differently, the prices given by (3) are not market
clearing prices. Tin and lead remained overpriced for the
first half of the 1980s, but since then have remained mar-
ginally underpriced (Fig. 5d).
102 M. Evans, A.C. Lewis / Resources Policy 28 (2002) 95–104

Results of testing for a common metals demand curve Table 3

using individual demand curves Ordinary least squares estimate of the simplified version of (8)

Metal Coefficient Estimated value t-value

The first possible generalisation of (3) is to allow each
metals demand curve to have a different intercept value Aluminium a01 5.5167 2.23∗
as in (8). Table 2 shows the result obtained from estimat- Copper a02 0.1204 10.2∗
ing (8) using ordinary least squares. Some of the a0i Lead a03 –1.3932 –199.0∗
coefficients were found to be insignificantly different Nickel a04 0.3209 54.0∗
a a
from zero and so a simplification search procedure was Tin a05
Zinc a06 –0.7391 –86.0∗
implemented. Here, the coefficient with the smallest Iron ore a07 –2.6619 –69.2∗
Student t value was removed and (8) then reestimated. Gold a08 5.6207 121.0∗
This procedure was continued until all remaining coef- Silver a09 2.3028 71.1∗
ficients were statistically significant at the 5% signifi- Platinum a010 4.5789 68.2∗
cance level. The results are shown in Table 3. The inter- Chromium a011 –3.8296 –729.0∗
Titanium a012 –2.0259 –413.0∗
cept term of the demand curve for aluminium is Vanadium a013 –0.9877 –35.8∗
a01 ⫽ 5.5167, Niobium a014 –0.9657 –29.5∗
– a1 –0.2790 –4.49∗
whilst the intercept term of the demand curve for iron – a2 2.0324 3.41∗
ore (i = 7) is – b –0.3801 –55.4∗

a01 ⫹ a07 ⫽ 5.5167⫺2.6619 ⫽ 2.8548. ∗

Coefficient significant at the 5% significance level.
a
Coefficient constrained to zero.
Under this specification, the iron ore demand curve is
parallel to the aluminium demand curve but lies signifi-
cantly below it. Table 4 shows the estimated demand Table 4
Estimated individual metals demand curves under specification (8)
curves for the remaining metals. It can be seen from this
table that the demand curves for copper, nickel, gold, Metal Intercept, a1 a2 b
silver and platinum lie above that for aluminium, with a0i
the remaining metals having demand curves lying below
that for aluminium. Aluminiuma 5.5167 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
The Student t values in Table 2 suggest that only two Copper 5.6371 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
metals share a common intercept—aluminium and tin Lead 4.1235 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
Nickel 5.8376 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
(metal i = 1 and i = 5). This may again be an empirical Tina 5.5167 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
curiosity or it may reflect the competition between alu- Zinc 4.7776 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
minium and tin plate in the packaging sector. All the Iron ore 2.8548 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
Gold 11.1374 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
Silver 7.8195 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
Table 2 Platinum 10.0956 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
Ordinary least squares estimate of the coefficients of (8) Chromium 1.6871 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
Titanium 3.4908 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
Metal Coefficient Estimated value t-value Vanadium 4.5356 –0.2791 2.0324 -0.3801
Niobium 4.5510 –0.2791 2.0324 –0.3801
Aluminium a01 5.2460 1.38
Copper a02 0.1344 0.81 a1: coefficient in front of variable lnP̄ in (8), a2: coefficient in front
Lead a03 –1.3618 –3.46∗ of variable lnĪ in (8), b: coefficient in front of variable lnC in (8).
Nickel a04 0.3985 0.40 a
Common metals demand curve.
Tin a05 0.1112 0.08
Zinc a06 –0.7133 –2.23∗
Iron ore a07 –2.7435 –2.54∗ remaining metals however have an intercept term that
Gold a08 5.8441 2.02∗ differs significantly to that associated with the metal alu-
Silver a09 2.4755 1.11
Platinum a010 4.8764 1.26 minium and so it is clear that most of the 14 metals
Chromium a011 –3.7918 –7.95∗ studied here do not share a common demand curve.
Titanium a012 –1.9868 –4.03∗ The next possible generalisation of (3) is to allow each
Vanadium a013 –0.8264 –0.41 metal demand curve to have a different slopes or price
Niobium a014 –0.7916 –0.35 elasticity of demand as in (9). Table 5 shows the result
– a1 –0.2781 –4.34∗
– a2 1.9998 2.49∗ obtained from estimating (9) using ordinary least
– b –0.3554 –1.11 squares. Some of the bi coefficients were found to be
insignificantly different from zero and so the above-men-
∗
Coefficient significant at the 5% significance level. tioned simplification search procedure was implemented.
 M. Evans, A.C. Lewis / Resources Policy 28 (2002) 95–104 103

Table 5 ore. Table 7 shows the estimated demand curves for the
Ordinary least squares estimate of the coefficients of (9) remaining metals. It can be seen from this table that the
metals gold, silver and platinum are more price elastic
Metal Coefficient Estimated value t-value
than aluminium and the metals lead, nickel, tin, zinc,
Aluminium b1 –0.6554 –12.3∗ iron ore, chrome, titanium, vanadium and niobium are
Copper b2 –0.0013 –0.23 less price elastic than aluminium.
Lead b3 –0.1117 –16.0∗ The Student t values in Table 5 suggest that two met-
Nickel b4 –0.0390 –2.88∗ als appear to share a common price elasticity of
Tin b5 –0.0987 –4.90∗ demand—aluminium and copper (metal i = 1 and i =
Zinc b6 –0.0643 –9.94∗
Iron ore b7 –0.0865 –8.49∗ 2). This may reflect the competition between aluminium
Gold b8 0.4067 6.48∗ and copper in the transport sector (which was around
Silver b9 0.0391 1.01 15% of the copper market in 1994) and the electronics
Platinum b10 0.2702 1.98∗ sector (which accounted for around 25% of the markets
Chromium b11 –0.2781 –36.3∗ for copper). All the remaining metals however have price
Titanium b12 –0.1611 –20.7∗
Vanadium b13 –0.2565 –7.92∗ elasticities that differ significantly to that associated with
Niobium b14 –0.2978 –7.61∗ the metal aluminium and so it is clear that most of the
– a0 8.1256 4.02∗ 14 metals studied do not share a common demand curve.
– a1 –0.3185 –3.95∗ It would appear that most metals have demand curves
– a2 2.5084 4.89∗ with differing slopes—as in Fig. 2—so that (3) depicts
∗
the mongrel function that is neither a supply nor a
Coefficient significant at the 5% significance level.
demand curve. Yet Table 7 reveals that most metals have
a similar, but statistically different price elasticity of
demand. Gold and platinum appear to be more price
The results are shown in Table 6. The inverse of the elastic than most, whilst niobium, vanadium and chro-
price elasticity of the demand for aluminium is mium are more price inelastic than most. The remaining
nine metals have inverse price elasticities close to 0.7.
b1 ⫽ ⫺0.6524,
This is a lot lower than the bt values shown in Table 1,
whilst the inverse of the price elasticity of demand for and so it would be dangerous to use such values to infer
iron ore (i = 7) is something on rates of future substitution between metals.
The final generalisation of (3) to be considered in this
b1 ⫹ b7 ⫽ ⫺0.6524⫺0.0865 ⫽ ⫺0.7389. paper is to allow each metal demand curve to have a
Aluminium is therefore more price elastic than iron different slopes or price elasticities of demand and dif-
ferent intercepts as in (10). However, the results obtained
for such a generalisation were not satisfactory. Table 8
shows the simplified estimated demand curve for each
Table 6
Ordinary least squares estimate of the simplified version of (9)
Table 7
Metal Coefficient Estimated value t-value Estimated individual metals demand curves under specification (9)

Aluminium b1 –0.6524 –12.6∗ Metal Intercept, a0 a1 a2 bi

a a
Copper b2
Lead b3 –0.1108 –18.9∗ Aluminiuma 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.6524
Nickel b4 –0.0376 –3.12∗ Coppera 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.6524
Tin b5 –0.0968 –5.28∗ Lead 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.7632
Zinc b6 –0.0635 –11.7∗ Nickel 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.6900
Iron ore b7 –0.0865 –8.51∗ Tin 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.7492
Gold b8 0.4115 6.98∗ Zinc 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.7159
Silver b9 0.0423 1.98∗ Iron ore 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.7389
Platinum b10 0.2800 2.17∗ Gold 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.2409
Chromium b11 –0.2771 –42.8∗ Silver 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.6101
Titanium b12 –0.1602 –24.3∗ Platinum 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.3724
Vanadium b13 –0.2537 –8.44∗ Chromium 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.9295
Niobium b14 –0.2946 –8.07∗ Titanium 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.8126
– a0 8.0962 4.02∗ Vanadium 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.9061
– a1 –0.3185 –3.96∗ Niobium 8.0962 –0.3185 2.5014 –0.9470
– a2 2.5014 4.89∗
a1: coefficient in front of variable lnP̄ in (9), a2: coefficient in front
∗
Coefficient significant at the 5% significance level. of variable lnĪ in (9), b: coefficient in front of variable lnC in (9).
a a
Coefficient constrained to zero. Common metals demand curve.
104 M. Evans, A.C. Lewis / Resources Policy 28 (2002) 95–104

Table 8 ticity of demand and this is consistent with the fact that
Estimated individual metals demand curves under specification (10) these metals compete in some of their major markets.
Metal Intercept, a0i a1 a2 bi

Aluminium 18.7485 –0.2647 2.0096 –1.1687 References

Coppera 18.5024 –0.2647 2.0096 –1.1687
Leadb 18.7485 –0.2647 2.0096 –1.1687 Balestra, P., Nerlove, M., 1966. Pooling cross-section and time-series
Nickel –3.5515 –0.2647 2.0096 0.3134 data in the estimation of a dynamic model: the demand for natural
Tinc 18.7485 –0.2647 2.0096 –1.4508 gas. Econometrica 34, 585–612.
Zinc –11.1567 –0.2647 2.0096 0.6362 Bozdogan, K., Hartmnn, R.S., 1979. US demand for copper: an intro-
Iron oreb 18.7485 –0.2647 2.0096 –1.1687 duction to theoretical and econometric analysis. In: Mikesell, R.F.
Gold 11.4154 –0.2647 2.0096 –1.9277 (Ed.), The World Copper Industry. The Johns Hopkins University
Silvera 15.5736 –0.2647 2.0096 –1.1687 Press for Resources for the Future, Baltimore, MD, pp. 131–163.
Platinum 9.6025 –0.2647 2.0096 –0.2649 Evans, M., 1996. Modelling steel demand in the UK. Ironmaking and
Chromium –1.0923 –0.2647 2.0096 –0.1944 Steelmaking 23, 17–24.
Titanium –13.1410 –0.2647 2.0096 1.4497 Figuerola-Ferretti, I., Gilbert, C.L., 2001. Price variability and market-
Vanadium 4.8748 –0.2647 2.0096 1.3043 ing method in non-ferrous metals: Slade’s analysis revisited.
Niobium 16.3934 –0.2647 2.0096 –0.4083 Resources Policy 27, 169–177.
Georgentalis, S., Nutting, J., Phillips, G., 1990. Relationship between
a1: coefficient in front of variable lnP̄ in (10), a2: coefficient in front price and consumption of metals. Materials Science and Tech-
of variable lnĪ in (10), b: coefficient in front of variable lnC in (10). nology 6, 192–195.
a
Common price elasticity with aluminium. Hughes, J.E., 1972. The exploitation of metals. Metals and Materials
b
Common intercept and price elasticity with aluminium. May, 197–205.
c
Common intercept with aluminium. International Financial Statistics Yearbook (1980–1989). International
Monetary Fund Publications, Washington, DC, Table Z.
Jacobson, D.M., Evans, D.S., 1985. The price of metals. Materials and
metal under this specification and as can be seen, four Society 9, 331–347.
of the metals appear to have a positive price elasticity Johnson, R., 1997. VW climbs back into the drivers seat. Automotive
of demand—nickel, zinc, titanium and vanadium. News Europe April, 8.
Labson, B.S., Crompton, P.L., 1993. Common trends in economic
activity: cointegration and the intensity of use debate. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 25, 147–161.
Conclusions MacAvoy, P.W., 1988. Explaining Metal Prices. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, London.
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the above Maddala, G.S., 2001. Introduction to Econometrics. John Wiley &
Sons, New York Chapter 15, pp. 573–583.
study. First, the empirical correlation between a metals Metals Bulletin (1980–1989). Mining Journal Books Ltd, Eden-
price and its level of consumption first identified by bridge, Kent.
Hughes in 1972 still holds today, with roughly the same Minerals Handbook (1980–1989). American Metal Market, New York.
price elasticity of demand. However, this relationship Myers, J.G., 1986. Testing for structural change in metal use. Materials
should be interpreted as mongrel function rather than as and Society, 271–283.
Nutting, J., 1977. Metals as materials. Metals and Materials
a stable common metals demand curve. The stability July/August, 30–34.
over time probably reflects the fact that the same type Platinum (1980–1989). Johnson Matthey, London.
of information is being averaged each year. As such, the Slade, M.E., 1981. Recent advances in econometric estimation of
singular price elasticities published in past papers should materials substitution. Resources Policy 7, 103–109.
not be used for assessing future rates of metals substi- Takechi, H., 1996. Lighter vehicle weight and steel materials. Steel
Today and Tomorrow January, 5–8.
tution. Tilton, J.E., 1990. World Metal Demand: Trends and Prospects.
Secondly, when price elasticities are allowed to vary Resources for the Future, Washington, DC pp. 25–30.
between metals, the resulting estimates suggest that met- Tilton, J.E., Fanyu, P., 1999. Consumer preferences, technological
als have similar but statistically different rates of substi- change, and the short run income elasticity of demand. Resources
tution. Platinum and gold have the highest rates of sub- Policy 25, 87–109.
Tilton, J.E., Moore, D.J., Shields, D.J., 1996. Economic growth and the
stitution whilst niobium and chrome have the lowest demand for construction materials. Resources Policy 22, 197–205.
rates of substitution. Finally, it appears to be the case Valdes, R.M., 1990. Modelling Australian steel consumption: the
that aluminium and copper share a common price elas- intensity of use technique. Resource Policy 16, 172–183.