f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 1 Fabio Petri - Microe conomics for the critical mind CHAPTER 5. november 20THE THE!R" !F THE F#RM$ PART#A% E&'#%#(R#A$ PERFECT C!MPET#T#!)$ A)* THE AT EMP!RA% +ACAP#TA%#,T#CE)ERA% E&'#%#(R#'M /#TH PR!*'CT#!) 5.1. The present chapter extends the marina!ist theor" of competitive enera! e#ui!i$rium to inc!u de prod uctio n %&itho ut capita! ood s and &ithout a rate of intere st' capita! ood s and rate ofint erest rai se spec ia! pro $!e ms in the mar in a!/n eoc! assi ca! app roa ch and &i! ! $e disc uss ed in (hapters )* + and ,-. o&ever* in order to mae our treatment of production decisions sufficient!" enera! and thus a!so usefu! for su$se#u ent chapters* &e admit the presence of capita! ood s &hen discussinthe sin!e firm and the sin!e industr"' &e on!" !eave them out &hen &e come* in the third part of the chapter* to discuss the enera! e#ui!i$rium of atempora!production and exchane as this ind of enera! e#ui!i$rium is ca!!ed %exp!anation for this termino!o" must &ait for(hapters ) and +-. e start &ith the necessar" notions a$out the theor" of production and of price-takingfirms. 4ricetain$ehaviour* &hich &e have a!read" assumed in the stud" of consumers* means the economic aent treats prices as iven parameters in her maximiations' hence a $u"er %respective!"* a se!!er- $e!ieves that the price at &hich she can purchase %respective!" se!!- additiona! units of a ood is the same as the price of the previous units' therefore for a firm* revenue from sa!es orexpenditure on inputs are !inear functions of the #uantit" so!d or $ouht. A discussion of &hen the pricetainassumption is !eitimate* and of its connection &ith the notion of competition* is provided in 4art 777 of the chapter. The firms &e stud" in this chapter produce undifferentiatedoods8 each product is produced $" man" firms and is so standardied %and unaccompanied $" maretinexpenses- that consumers are indifferent as $et&een the severa! producers. As a resu!t the on!" pro$!em of the pricetainfirm is ho& much to produce and &ith &hat com$ination of inputs. 4A9T 7 49:;<(T7:= 4:>>7?7@7T7E> >ET> A=; 49:;<(T7:= <=(T7:=> 5.2..7maine a &or!d &here a variet" of consumption oods is produced throuh the use ofunproduced %oriina!- factors* i.e. different t"pes of !and and of !a$our' there are no produced
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 1
Fabio Petri - Microeconomics for the critical mind
CHAPTER 5. november 20
THE THE!R" !F THE F#RM$ PART#A% E&'#%#(R#A$ PERFECT C!MPET#T#!)$
A)* THE ATEMP!RA% +ACAP#TA%#,T#C E)ERA% E&'#%#(R#'M /#TH
PR!*'CT#!)
5.1. The present chapter extends the marina!ist theor" of competitive enera! e#ui!i$rium to
inc!ude production %&ithout capita! oods and &ithout a rate of interest' capita! oods and rate of
interest raise specia! pro$!ems in the marina!/neoc!assica! approach and &i!! $e discussed in
(hapters )* + and ,-. o&ever* in order to mae our treatment of production decisions sufficient!"
enera! and thus a!so usefu! for su$se#uent chapters* &e admit the presence of capita! oods &hen
discussin the sin!e firm and the sin!e industr"' &e on!" !eave them out &hen &e come* in the
third part of the chapter* to discuss the enera! e#ui!i$rium of atempora! production and exchane
as this ind of enera! e#ui!i$rium is ca!!ed %exp!anation for this termino!o" must &ait for
(hapters ) and +-.
e start &ith the necessar" notions a$out the theor" of production and of price-taking firms.
4ricetain $ehaviour* &hich &e have a!read" assumed in the stud" of consumers* means the
economic aent treats prices as iven parameters in her maximiations' hence a $u"er %respective!"*a se!!er- $e!ieves that the price at &hich she can purchase %respective!" se!!- additiona! units of a
ood is the same as the price of the previous units' therefore for a firm* revenue from sa!es or
expenditure on inputs are !inear functions of the #uantit" so!d or $ouht. A discussion of &hen the
pricetain assumption is !eitimate* and of its connection &ith the notion of competition* is
provided in 4art 777 of the chapter.
The firms &e stud" in this chapter produce undifferentiated oods8 each product is produced
$" man" firms and is so standardied %and unaccompanied $" maretin expenses- that consumersare indifferent as $et&een the severa! producers. As a resu!t the on!" pro$!em of the pricetain
firm is ho& much to produce and &ith &hat com$ination of inputs.
5.2.. 7maine a &or!d &here a variet" of consumption oods is produced throuh the use of unproduced %oriina!- factors* i.e. different t"pes of !and and of !a$our' there are no produced
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 2
means of production i.e. no capita! oods* and no need to date oods no ro!e for time* no interest
rate. e &ant to understand ho& the marina! approach determines the competitive enera!
e#ui!i$rium of such an econom".
There are t&o t"pes of aents8 consumers* &ith iven endo&ments of factors and iven
preferences' and firms. 7n the $acround* ensurin respect of private propert" and of contracts*
there must $e an institutiona! setup* somethin !ie a state &ith !a&s* po!ice and courts* and this
re#uires resources* $ut for the moment &e ne!ect this aspect.
irms have rod1ction ossibilit sets. A production possi$i!it" set B is the set of a!!
com$inations of inputs and outputs that are possi$!e for a iven firm. These com$inations are ca!!ed
rod1ction rocesses or rod1ction lans. A production process is a vector* of inputs and of
outputs* &ith n e!ements if the possi$!e outputs and inputs tota! to n.
7n modern enera! e#ui!i$rium theor"* the preferred forma!iation of a production process is
as a vector of net1ts* a vector &here neative num$ers indicate %net- inputs and positive num$ers
indicate %net- outputs of oods %or services-.
h" the specification C%net- inputsC and C%net- outputsCD =etputs are especia!!" convenient
&hen one studies intertempora! e#ui!i$ria &ith produced intermediate means of production %i.e.
capita! oods-. Then inputs and outputs are dated. A firm ma" for examp!e consider a p!an inc!udin
the production of 100 units of a circu!atin capita! ood at time t* and a!so the uti!iation of +0 of those units at time t to o$tain other products at time t1' one sa"s then that the p!anned netput of
that capita! ood $" that firm at time t is 20' its &hat the firm can se!! of that capita! ood to outside
aents accordin to that p!an. Then the inner product of a netput vector and of the vector of input
and output %discounted- prices "ie!ds the %discounted- profit of adoptin that production p!an* &ith
neative netput entries %amounts of inputs- contri$utin to cost and positive netput entries %amounts
of outputs- contri$utin to %discounted- revenue.
7n the same &a" as for consumer theor"* inputs and outputs can a!so $e distinuished $" the!ocation in &hich the" are avai!a$!e* and $" the state of nature &ith &hich the" are associatedF 1.
hen oods are dated* it &i!! $e enera!!" !eitimate to assume that if B inc!udes a productive
process &ith netputs distinuished $" their dates* %"t*..*"T-* then it a!so inc!udes the same se#uence
&ith a!! netputs dates increased $" the same num$er* indicatin that a!! that matters is the !a
$et&een inputs and outputs* and not the moment &hen the productive process is started'
furthermore it is natura! to assume that outputs cannot precede their inputs in time.
?ut no& &e !eave aside #uestions re#uirin the datin of commodities. The most accepta$!e
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 3
interpretation of the mode! &e are oin to present in 4art 777 is that it depicts the e#ui!i$rium of an
econom" &here f!o&s %per time unit- of services of non-produced factors %t"pes of !and and t"pes
of !a$our- produce f!o&s %per time unit- of consumption oods* either &ith no !a %continuousf!o&
production-* or in production c"c!es of one period !enth &ith the product comin out a!! toether at
the end of the period' and that there is no intertempora! transfer of purchasin po&er %no !oans- and
thus no interest rate. This is ca!!ed the atempora! econom" $ut in fact it ma" &e!! refer to an
econom" in time* &ith production tain time* $ut &ith no interest rate and no !oans' the
e#ui!i$rium can $e conceived as the norma! situation &hich the econom" ravitates to&ard* &ith
averae prices constant throuh time or chanin sufficient!" s!o&!" for the chane to $e ne!ii$!e.
The endo&ments of the econom" consist therefore on!" of nonproduced factors* and &e assume
that the inputs consist on!" of services of these factors' the products are on!" consumption oods*
that are so!d as the" come out.
5.2.2. hen the vector of outputs to $e produced $" a firm is iven* the in1t re31irement
set is the set of input vectors that a!!o& the production of that vector of outputs. 7n the vectors of the
input re#uirement set the inputs are measured as positive #uantities. 7f one assumes that some of the
#uantities of inputs can $e !eft id!e* the input re#uirement set for a certain output vector inc!udes a!!
vectors x of inputs that a!!o& producin at !east that output vector* p!us a!! vectors xIx.irms &i!! enera!!" on!" uti!ie efficient production processes. 7n terms of netputs &e sa"
that "∈B is efficient if there is no other "C∈B such that "CJ" and "CI"' in other &ords it is not
possi$!e to produce the same outputs &ith !ess of some input* or to produce more of some output
&ith the same inputs. 7f the output vector I0 is iven* an input vector x %inputs $ein measured
no& as positive #uantities- is efficient if no vector xKx exists such that the netput vector %*x-∈B.
hen one considers production processes that produce on!" one output* it is often assumed
that the economically relevant production processes that produce that output can $e descri$ed $" arod1ction f1nction #Lf%x1**xn-Lf%4- &here output # is the maximum output o$taina$!e from the
vector of inputs 4L%x1**xn-* the !atter measured as positive #uantities. The set of input vectors that
a production function #Lf%x- associates &ith a iven output #N is ca!!ed the iso31ant associated &ith
#N' note that its e!ements need not $e a!! efficient8 if x is an efficient input vector associated &ith
output #N* and if the addition to x of some additiona! amount of an input* e.. Ox 1* is una$!e to
increase production* the ne& input vector xL%x1 Ox1**xn- is a!so part of the iso#uant associated
&ith #N. 7n common par!ance in economics &hen one speas of output o$taina$!e from certaininputs* one means the maximum output. The reason &h" the economica!!" re!evant production
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. H
processes can inc!ude some nonefficient input vectors is that if an input is free %ero price-* a firm
need not !imit the demand for it* so it miht even demand a use!ess!" !are amount of it.
7t is sometimes assumed that in the short eriod the #uantit" of some inputs cannot $e varied'
these are ca!!ed fixed inputs. The short-eriod rod1ction f1nction has t&o a!ternative
representations8 it can inc!ude amon the inputs the iven #uantities of the fixed factors* $ut for
$revit" it can a!so descri$e output as a function of the so!e variable inputs.
The e#uiva!ent of the production function for production processes that produce severa!
outputs simu!taneous!" is a transformation f1nction imp!icit!" defined $" an e#uation T%x1*
*xn'#1*...*#m-L0* &here* aain* inputs are measured as positive #uantitiesF2. or a!! inputs fixed
and a!! outputs $ut one fixed* the e#uation "ie!ds the maximum o$taina$!e output of the !ast ood*
and for a!! outputs and a!! inputs $ut one fixed* the e#uation "ie!ds the minimum necessar" amount
of the !ast input.
5.. hen the production possi$i!ities set B is a set of netput vectors* some axioms that ma"
$e postu!ated on it are8
1 0∈B* inactivit" is one possi$i!it"
2 B∩9 n L {0}* no production of outputs &ithout inputs
3 B∩ B L P* production is irreversi$!eH B is convex
5 B is $ounded a$ove
6 for an" ood i* and an" positive sca!ar #* the vector "L%0*...*0*#i*0*...0- is ∈B %free
disosal-.
Axioms 1* 2 and 3 are unpro$!ematic and are assumed in &hat fo!!o&s. Axiom H imp!ies
perfect divisi$i!it" of a!! inputs and outputs' its connection &ith returns to sca!e &i!! $e discussed
present!". Axiom 5 is convenient in a first stae of some mathematica! proofs* and it is Qustified $"referrin to !imited factor endo&ments that do not a!!o& producin more than certain maximum
#uantities* $ut this means mixin up endo&ments &ith techno!oies* so it &i!! not $e assumed in
&hat fo!!o&s. Axiom 6 postu!ates that for each ood there is avai!a$!e a process that uses that ood
a!one as an input and produces nothin* so one can a!&a"s et rid of an" amount of an" ood
&ithout an" cost' it is ca!!ed the free disosal ass1mtion. hen the free disposa! assumption is
made* then an" firm can coup!e an" production process &ith free disposa! processes* and the resu!t
2 Exercise8 :$tain the transformationfunction representation of a production function.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 5
is a propert" or assumption sometimes ca!!ed monotonicit of the rod1ction ossibilities set+8
if "∈B* then "C such that "CK" is a!so ∈B*
$ecause "C is a process that emp!o"s at !east as much of each input as " % H-* and produces not more
of each output than "* and it is a!&a"s possi$!e to o$tain "C from " $" use of free disposa! processes.
#Lf%x-
#
: x
i. 5.1. 4roduction possi$i!ities set resu!tin from a production function #Lf%x- p!us free disposa!.
ree disposa! ma" appear a #uestiona$!e assumption in man" situations %it is often cost!" to
et rid of oods* or to prevent some output from comin out-* $ut it can $e arued to $e
fundamenta!!" harm!ess. An a$i!it" cost!ess!" to et rid of excess inputs is not needed as !on as
these inputs have a positive cost* $ecause then firms &i!! not $u" them to start &ith* so a free
disposa! assumption of excess cost!" inputs is superf!uous $ut then a!so harm!ess' and if inputs are
cost!ess and &ith a neative marina! product* the" can $e !eft id!e and a!! one needs is to
distinuish the technological from the economic production method %as &as done in R3.3.H-. As to
undesired outputs* if the" must not $e produced it can $e assumed that* &hatever disposa! process is
necessar" in order not to produce them %or in order to dispose of them-* its inputs %and costs- are
inc!uded amon the inputs %and costs- of the desired output. hen there is a choice a$out ho&
much to produce of an undesired side product* then a forma!iation can usua!!" $e found in &hich
the abatement of its production is counted as an output* and then the pro$!em $ecomes aain the
3 >ome authors ca!! monotonicit" the fo!!o&in s!iht!" different assumption8 !et # stand for a vector of
outputs and !et S%#- stand for the set of input vectors %measured as positive #uantities- that a!!o& the
production of at !east #' if an input vector x is in S%#-* and xCIx* then xC∈S%#-.H 9emem$er that inputs are neative num$ers* so a greater use of an input means a reater a$so!ute va!ue
of a neative num$er i.e.* a!e$raica!!"* a smaller num$er indicatin input use.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. +
in its entiret" $" a firm is $roen do&n into processes performed $" different firms* for examp!e
production of a car has historica!!" $een more and more $roen do&n amon separate firms &hich
produce the seats* the &indshie!d* the tires* the $raes* etc.* parts &hich are fina!!" assem$!ed into a
car $" a different firm. hich inputs are initia! inputs that appear in the production function* and
&hich are intermediate staes that are on!" imp!icit!" considered %$ut miht $ecome exp!icit if the
process &ere $roen do&n into successive su$processes performed $" different firms-* depends on
the oraniation of production and* from the theoristCs point of vie&* is !are!" ar$itrar". This maes
the notion of intermediate in1t am$iuous. !our is an intermediate input in the production of
$read from &heat* $ut it is an initia! input in the production of $read from f!our.
The term Cintermediate inputC is sometimes used as s"non"m of circ1latin7 caital 7ood*
&hich means a capita! ood that is fu!!" destro"ed %one miht sa"* that disappears into the product-
in a sin!e uti!iation. These t&o notions are $est ept distinct' it is $est to reserve the term
Cintermediate inputsC for the products produced and reuti!ied inside a production process* and
therefore not appearin amon the inputs of the production function %the" must not $e paid for-.
The inputs appearin in the production function are a!! the Cinitia!C inputs that must $e paid for% 6-'
&hen the" are capita! oods* the" can $e either circu!atin capita! oods* or d1rable caital 7oods'
in the !atter case the" reappear amon the outputs* o$vious!" &ith the a!terations caused $"
uti!iation%)
-.e &i!! enera!!" assume that a!! inputs and outputs are perfect!" divisi$!e* i.e. can $e
represented $" continuous varia$!es. This is a ood approximation for !and and for !a$our timeF +*
$ut it is o$vious!" unrea!istic for capita! oods and for man" products' ho&ever* if the ana!"sis dea!s
&ith $i #uantities the assumption ma" sti!! $e accepta$!e if the indivisi$i!ities are sma!! re!ative to
tota! input use or tota! output.
Much more de$ata$!e is the assumption of differentia$i!it" of the production function* and
here &e come to a ver" important issue. 7n most industries a different productive process re#uires*not different proportions amon the same capita! oods* $ut different capita! oods* and for each
ensem$!e of capita! oods a rather riid !a$our input. The amount of !a$our services needed to
assem$!e a car* for examp!e* is rather strict!" determined $" ho& mechanied the production
6 7n the case of intertempora! production functions* Cinita!C inputs are not necessari!" enterin the process
at the same date* the term Cinitia!C must $e interpreted as meanin not produced $" the production process
itse!f.) 7t is a!so possi$!e to imaine cases in &hich a dura$!e capita! ood is an intermediate ood* $ecause the
production process considered !asts a num$er of periods* and produces itse!f a dura$!e capita! ood &hich is
then entire!" uti!ied durin the remainder of the process.+ @a$our time is* ph"sica!!" speain* perfect!" divisi$!e* $ut reu!ations often !imit this divisi$i!it"' for
examp!e a firm ma" $e o$!ied to hire fu!!time !a$our on!". Even then* if the firm emp!o"s 1000 !a$ourers a
perfect divisi$i!it" assumption ma" $e an accepta$!e approximation.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. ,
process is' and there is no su$stituta$i!it" $et&een the parts to $e assem$!ed* a car needs exact!" one
enine* five t"res* etc.* each one of these parts needin in turn riid #uantities of materia! inputs and
riid amounts of !a$our determined $" the machiner" used. There enera!!" is no* or near!" no*
varia$i!it" of proportions amon the same inputs. ;ifferentia$i!it" is a very unrea!istic assumption
&hen a!! inputs are ph"sica!!" specified and production uses capita! oods. ?ut then ho& come the
differentia$i!it" assumption is so &ide!" acceptedD The reason &ou!d appear to $e a historica! one*
name!" the Marsha!!ian ha$it* shared $" a maQorit" of economists of his eneration and of the next
one* and sti!! &idespread toda"* to descri$e production functions as com$inations of !a$our and
!and &ith capita! treated as a single factor \* measured as an amount of value' imp!icit!"* the prices
of the severa! capita! oods are treated as iven* and the production function is determined as
fo!!o&s8 the firm is assumed to determine* for each iven vector of noncapita! inputs and each
iven \* the vector of capita! oods of va!ue \ that maximies production' thus* iven the amounts
of !a$our and !and* sma!! increases of \ can &e!! imp!" a tota!!" different vector of capita! oods'
a!on a tota! factor productivit" curve* capita! so conceived chanes not on!" in #uantit" %an amount
of exchane va!ue- $ut a!so in form %ph"sica! composition-F ,. ith such a specification of the
capita! input* the assumption of smooth varia$i!it" of proportions $et&een the inputs ac#uires much
reater p!ausi$i!it"8 increasin on!" the num$er of t"res certain!" does not increase the output of
cars' on the contrar" if &hat can $e increased is the value of the capita! oods used* &hich can $eassociated &ith a chane in the capita! oods used* then it is !ie!" that a &a" can $e found to use
the capita! increase so as to increase the num$er of cars produced $" a iven num$er of &orers.
<nfortunate!" in more recent times this oriin of the use of smooth production functions and of
nice!" decreasin marina! product curves appears to have $een !ost siht of* &ith the resu!t that in
modern microeconomic theor" and enera! e#ui!i$rium theor" this treatment of capita! has one out
of fashionF10* inputs are a!! measured in technica! units* the severa! capita! oods are each treated as
a separate factor' $ut continuit" and differentia$i!it" of production functions are sti!! common!"assumed. 7 must fo!!o& no& this usua! practice in order to introduce the readers to this !iterature'
$ut it is important to rea!ie that &e are encounterin here an instance of surviva!* in a context no
!oner Qustif"in them* of assumptions that &ere oriina!!" Qustified $" the treatment of capita! as a
sin!e va!ue factor of varia$!e form. %More on this in chapter ).-
, Ana!oous!" an iso#uant in terms of* sa"* !a$our and \ indicates* for each !eve! of !a$our* the minimum
va!ue of capita! re#uired to produce the iven output' aain* sma!! movements a!on the iso#uant can &e!!
mean a passae to a production method re#uirin ver" different capita! oods.10 7t is not difficu!t to understand &h". The treatment of capita! as a #uantit" of va!ue in the firms
production function is on!" !eitimate if the prices of capita! oods are iven. ?ut these prices cannot $e
taen as iven &hen the purpose of the ana!"sis is not a partia!e#ui!i$rium one $ut rather the determination
of income distri$ution &hich affects re!ative prices.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 10
>o un!ess different!" specified* &e assume production functions to $e continuous and
differentia$!e functions of perfect!" divisi$!e inputs.
5.8. Returns to scale#
5.6.1. 7n (h. H &e met homoeneous functions %cf. (h. H fn. 35DD-. (9> imp!ies that the
production function is homoeneous of deree 1 F11. 7f the production function is homoeneous of
deree W1* it has increasin returns to sca!e' if homoeneous of deree 1 it has decreasin
returns to sca!e. Even &hen a function f%x- is not homoeneous* &e can determine its local degree
of homogeneity $" increasin a!! independent varia$!es $" a common sma!! percentae* sa"* .1]*
and o$servin &hether f%x- increases $" more or !ess than .1]. This indicates the local
technolo7ical ret1rns to scale %of course* under perfect divisi$i!it" of a!! inputs-. Their most
&ide!" used measure is the scale elasticit of o1t1t %or simp!" elasticit of scale- &ith respect to
inputs. @et 4 $e the vector of inputs in an initia! situation &ith #Lf%4-* and consider f%t4- &ith tW0'
the sca!ar t measures sca!e* and the sca!e e!asticit" of output in #Lf%4- is defined as
e % &df(t x )'f(t x )'(dt't) L %$'t) * (t'$) % ln $ ' ln t eva!uated in t%+! ,ith x fixed .
=ote that this definition does not re#uire differentia$i!it" of f%x-* it on!" re#uires
differentia$i!it" of f%t4- &ith respect to t* i.e. &ith respect to proportiona! variations of a!! inputs*
therefore it is app!ica$!e to production functions &here inputs* or some of them* are perfectcomp!ements. ?ut if f%x- is differentia$!e* then $" the derivative ru!e of a function of function it is e
% ∑ =
n
+i ) x( f
+&xi*f'xi . ?" Eu!erCs theorem on homoeneous functions* if the production function
has constant returns to sca!e then i(xi*f'xi )%f( x ) so eL1. Accordin as e is e#ua! to* more than* or
!ess than* 1* the production function exhi$its locall constant$ locall increasin7$ or locall
11 T&o properties of homoeneous functions %a!read" $rief!" indicated in footnote 35 of ch. H- are of reat
re!evance for (9> production functions. A continuous function f%x1*...*xn- is homogeneous of degree k if*
&ith t a positive sca!ar* f%tx1*...*txn- L t
f%x1*...*xn-. The first propert" is that if a function homoeneous of deree is differentia$!e* then its partia! derivatives are homoeneous of deree 1' the proof is $"
differentiatin $oth sides of f%tx1*...*txn- L t f%x1*...*xn- &ith respect to xi* and indicatin &ith ^f%tx-/^%tx i- the
partia! derivative of f re!ative to the ith independent varia$!e* ca!cu!ated in tx8 one o$tains
i
k
i x
x f t
tx
tx f t
∂
∂=
∂
∂ -%
-%
-%&hich imp!ies that the partia! derivative ca!cu!ated in tx is the partia! derivative
ca!cu!ated in x mu!tip!ied $" t1' thus if f is a (9> production function its marina! products are
homoeneous of deree ero i.e. depend on!" on factor ratios %hence the expansion path* the !ocus of
tanencies $et&een iso#uants and isocosts* is a ra" from the oriin-. or the second propert"* differentiate
$oth sides of f%tx1*...*txn-Lt f%x1*...*xn- &ith respect to t* o$tainin -%--%
-%% 1
1
x f kt xtx
tx f k n
i
i
i
−
=
=⋅∂
∂∑ * and then
set tL18 one o$tains _i%xi`^f/^xi-Lf%x-* a resu!t sometimes ca!!ed .uler/s theorem for homogeneous
functions' for (9> production functions it is L1* hence if each factor is paid its ph"sica! marina! product
the pa"ment to factors exhausts the product* a resu!t a!so ca!!ed the product exhaustion theorem.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 11
decreasin7 ret1rns to scale.%12-
7f all re!evant inputs are taen into account in the specification of the production function*
then an exact dou$!in of a!! inputs a!!o&s the exact rep!ication of the same p!ant t&ice and
therefore it shou!d permit at least a dou$!in of production8 for inteer tW1* f%t4-Itf%4-* i.e. there
must $e at least constant returns to sca!e. h" do 7 sa" Cat !eastCD ?ecause there ma" $e some
indivisi$i!it" of the techno!oica! process* &hich &as not fu!!" exp!oited at the oriina! sca!e* and
can $e $etter exp!oited at a $ier sca!e* a!!o&in for increasin returns to sca!e. Thus consider the
production function of a firm that extracts and transports oi! and a!so produces a!! the pipes for the
pipe!ine. The pipes are intermediate products in the overa!! production process and appear neither
amon the inputs nor amon the outputs of the oi! productionandtransport function. The inputs
inc!ude* for examp!e* the stee! needed to mae the pipes. =o&* up to a point the carr"in capacit" of
pipes increases more than proportiona!!" &ith the increase in the stee! uti!ied to mae pipes*
$ecause the stee! uti!ied is &ithin certain !imits rouh!" proportiona! to the diameter of the pipe
$ut the carr"in capacit" is proportiona! to the s#uare of the diameter. ;ou$!in the amount of
produced and transported oi! ma" then re#uire pipes of dou$!e diameter that use !ess than dou$!e the
stee!* &ith !ess than dou$!e the cost. A simi!ar issue arises &ith tans. This examp!e sho&s that*
&hen the production function ref!ects vertica!!" interated production processes &hich inc!ude the
production and uti!iation of intermediate oods* a dou$!in of a!! inputs need not correspond to arep!ication of the same production method t&ice* and a dou$!in of output need not re#uire a
dou$!in of inputs%13-. >ti!!* the rep!ication of the same production method t&ice %the $ui!din of a
second p!ant identica! to the first one- is a!&a"s possi$!e and therefore returns to sca!e for inteer
tW1 are at !east constant. hat a!!o&s the existence of increasin technica! returns to sca!e is the
existence of indivisi$i!ities %either of oods* or of processes- &hich are not fu!!" taen advantae of
at sma!! sca!es of production.
The resu!t f%t4-Itf%4- need not ho!d for fractiona! increases in sca!e* aain o&in toindivisi$i!ities. 7t ma" $e impossi$!e to increase a!! inputs $"* sa"* 30] if some inputs are
indivisi$!e' or the indivisi$i!ities can $e in the production process* e.. the production process miht
$e vertica!!" interated and inc!ude the interna! production and uti!iation of a !are indivisi$!e
12 The extension of these definitions to transformation functions is !eft to the reader % rays of outputs &i!!
rep!ace the sin!e output' the so!e comp!ication is that* since &ith transformation functions enera!!" a iven
vector of inputs does not uni#ue!" determine the vector of outputs* it is no& possi$!e to imaine cases &here
returns to sca!e differ accordin to &hich output ra" one considers-.13 The same can happen if capita! oods are areated into the sin!e factor %va!ue of- capita!' then
dou$!e the capita! and dou$!e the noncapita! inputs need not correspond to purchasin t&ice as man" of the
same capita! oods* it ma" for examp!e mean the use of a different fixed p!ant that costs t&ice as much $ut
a!!o&s more than dou$!e the production. (f. $e!o&* R5.20* the notion of sca!e returns to cost.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 12
capita! ood. ?e!o& 7 &i!! assume that this pro$!em is of minor importance* &e &i!! see that &hen
one considers an entire industr" &ith free entr" it is enera!!" p!ausi$!e to treat the industr" output
as comin from a (9> production function even &hen at the firm !eve! there are re!evant
indivisi$i!ities
5.6.2. 4!ausi$!"* even if indivisi$i!ities cause increasin returns at sma!! sca!es of production*
at each stae of technica! no&!ede there is a finite production sca!e $e"ond &hich returns to sca!e
are no !oner increasin8 &e can ca!! it minimum optima! sca!e. ?e"ond a certain dimension !arer
pipes and tans are no !oner convenient $ecause the" re#uire specia! reinforcin structures. 7n a
perfect!" competitive industr" &ith free entr" firms must produce at minimum averae cost and
therefore &i!! tend to adopt p!ants of at !east minimum optima! sca!e* possi$!" severa! of them. As
!on as this efficient sca!e of production is sma!! re!ative to tota! industr" output* it &i!! $e
approximate!" true that the areate of firms composin an industr" can $e seen as havin a
production function exhi$itin constant returns to sca!e &here the constanc" is enerated $"
variations in the num$er of identica! efficient p!ants. or this reason* $e!o& &e enera!!" assume
constant technica! returns to sca!e for industries. This assumption ma" appear va!id for on!" a ver"
restricted set of industries* iven the o$serva$!e tendenc" of firms in man" industries to ro& as
!are as the" can. ?ut the advantaes of sie can $e due to man" other reasons $esides increasintechnica! returns to sca!e* reasons that do not concern us no&%1H-. An"&a" !o$a!iation has
increased competition in man" industries &here minimum efficient p!ant sie is ver" !are' for
examp!e* one can $u" cars produced a!! over the &or!d* \orean cars compete &ith German and
<>A cars* thus even for industries &here minimum p!ant sie is ver" !are there often appears to $e
sufficient competition for the assumption of price e#ua! to averae cost to $e $road!" accepta$!e for
man" ana!"ses.
5.6.3. hat a$out decreasing technica! returns to sca!eD The" are difficu!t to defend if the
inputs appearin in the production function are rea!!" all re!evant inputs* $ecause then* as arued
a$ove* identica! dup!ication of p!ant and process shou!d "ie!d dou$!e output. ;ecreasin returns to
sca!e can $e admitted on!" if some re!evant inputs are fixed in #uantit" and do not appear in the
production function. This is the case in shortperiod ana!"sis &hen on!" varia$!e inputs are made to
appear in the production function' $ut for !onperiod ana!"sis* the so!e &a" &hich appears
1H e on!" mention at this stae the possi$!e advantaes in terms of funds for maretin expenditures* or
for research and deve!opment %9;- expenditures* and the possi$i!it" to o$tain discounts on some input
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 13
accepta$!e to arrive at decreasin returns to sca!e is to postu!ate a reater difficulty of control and
co-ordination over the performance of su$ordinatesF15. 7t miht $e ans&ered that if one dup!icates
not on!" the p!ant $ut a!so the manaers* there is no reason &h" there shou!d $e a reater difficu!t"
of contro!. The o$Qection to this is that manaers must $e contro!!ed too* and the o&ner of the firm
or top manaer ma" have reater difficu!t" in avoidin su$ordinate manaers shirin or
em$e!in &hen she must contro! man" manaers' furthermore* the information that the top
manaer must process increases* and its re!ia$i!it" decreases* as it must pass throuh a reater
num$er of $ureaucratic !a"ers* main correct decisions more difficu!t. hether this o$Qection is
sufficient to Qustif" an optima! sie of pricetain firms is sti!! an o$Qect of disareement amon
theoreticiansF16. ?ut for the purposes of va!ue theor" &hat is important is the $ehaviour of
industries* and then the moment one admits free entr" the difficu!ties of contro! ma" exp!ain &h"
individua! firms are !imited in sie* $ut industr" output can $e varied $" variation in the num$er of
firms' so at the industr" !eve! there &i!! $e (9> an"&a" in !onperiod ana!"sis as !on as one can
assume that minimum efficient sie is sma!! re!ative to tota! demand.
5.6.H. ina!!" a &ord on the difference $et&een production process and production method
&hen there are (9>. An" netput vector in the production possi$i!it" set is a production process.
ith (9>* if % 4*#- is the netput representation of a sin!eoutput production process then %t4*t#-&ith tW0 is a production process too* and if the first one is efficient so is the second. :ne means then
$" rod1ction method a set of ratios $et&een inputs and outputs8 a vector % 4*#-∈B and a vector
%t4*t#-* tJ1* are considered t&o production processes representin the same method activated at
t&o different activity levels.
15 ;ecreasin economic returns to sca!e %i.e. profits that increase !ess than proportionate!" &ith output-
can arise $ecause an output increase raises the renta!s of some inputs' $ut this is $est ept separate from the
issue of technica! returns to sca!e.16 or examp!e* >cherer and 9oss p. 106 aree &ith the traditiona! position &e!! represented $" EAG
9o$inson DDref on the reater difficu!t" of contro! as a cause of u!timate!" decreasin returns to sca!e* and
their aruments on the difficu!t" of contro! increasin &ith sie are prima facie convincin. Edith 4enrose on
the contrar" &rote8 be do not no& ho& effective the decentra!iation of authorit" can $e as a means of
eepin costs per unit of output from risin as a firm expands. 9e!ia$!e empirica! evidence does not exist and
a!! studies of the matter are inconc!usive* $ut there is no evidence that a !are decentra!ied concern re#uires
supermen to run it....=either is there sinificant evidence that the a$i!it" to fi!! the hiher administrative
positions is excessive!" rare or that the demands on the men occup"in these positions exceed their a$i!it" to
cope &ith them effective!".U E. 4enrose* b@imits to the ro&th and sie of firmsU* AE9 1,55* vo!. H5 %2-*
Ma"* 531H3* p. 5H2. (ases supportin 4enrose* for examp!e Mac;ona!ds or (oca(o!a or <nited ruits*
easi!" come to mind. 4erhaps in man" cases the advantaes of increasin sie are so reat %especia!!" &hen
one considers the sca!e economies in maretin* 9;* transport costs* emp!o"ee trainin* etc.-* as to more
than counter$a!ance the increasin difficu!ties of coordination' a!so* t"in decentra!ied manaers pa" to
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 1,
an" Qoint use %or even a!ternate use- of the t&o processes on the same machine miht $e impossi$!e
$ecause the residues of the components of one process &ou!d react &ith the components of the
other process and destro" the machine. 7n this case* assumin free disposa!* the restricted iso#uant
&ou!d have the shape sho&n in iure 5.3a. The meanin of such an iso#uant is that* iven the
other inputs* the desired output can $e produced either &ith the #uantit" x 1C of input 1* or &ith the
#uantit" x2C of input 2* $ut not &ith $oth. o&ever* cases such as this one can $e considered hih!"
unusua! and therefore &e !eave them aside.
5.9. Profit maximization and APM
The most common assumption a$out the $ehaviour of firms is that the" aim to maximie
profit . The meanin of CprofitC here and in the entire chapter is the marina!ist one* i.e. in this
chapter CprofitC stands for &hat is !eft to the entrepreneur %the o&ner of the firm- after pa"in a!!
costs including interest on capita! advances%1+-. Even &hen the apparent aim of the firm is another
one* e.. sa!es maximiation* a case can usua!!" $e made that this does not entai! sinificant!"
different choices from the ones aimed at maximiin !onrun profit. More re!evant is the
possi$i!it" of inefficienc"* $ut as !on as manaement strives for profit maximiation the fact that
the oa! is on!" imperfect!" rea!ied does not a!ter the $road pattern of industr" $ehaviour. or
examp!e* the tendenc" to invest more in the industries that offer $etter profita$i!it" prospects &i!!sti!! exist even if on averae manaement is not ver" ood at minimiin costs. The first"ear
text$oo shortperiod supp!" curve of the firm* coincidin &ith the marina! cost curve* most
pro$a$!" remains up&ards!opin and therefore suests an increase in output if the product price
rises* even if marina! cost ref!ects inefficiencies. And the occasiona! episodes of manaers
pursuin strateies of persona! enrichment at the expense of the profita$i!it" of their firm usua!!"
end up rather #uic!" in the disappearance of the firm* &hose maret shares are a$sor$ed $" $etter
run firms. e accept profit maximiation as $road!" va!id as a surviva! condition* especia!!" incompetitive environmentsF1,. A monopo!ist entrepreneur not threatened $" taeovers miht indu!e
in other aims* e.. to have po!itica! inf!uence* or p!a" o!f* or $e enerous to&ard emp!o"ees' firms
in competitive environments and under threat of taeovers end up $ein taen over or oin
1+ And inc!udin an a!!o&ance for ris too' $ut &e are not considerin ris for the moment. %The reader
ma" $e surprised $" our mentionin interest here' $ut as &e said* the treatment of firms aims to $e enera!*
the assumption that there are no capita! oods and no interest &i!! on!" $e made &hen &e come to the
enera! e#ui!i$rium mode! to $e studied at the end of this chapter.-1, brom the vo!uminous and often inconsistent evidence* it appears that the profit maximiation assumption
at !east provides a ood first approximation in descri$in $usiness $ehavior. ;eviations* $oth intended and
inadvertent* undou$ted!" exist in a$undance* $ut the" are ept &ithin more or !ess narro& $ounds $"
competitive pressures* the se!finterest of stoco&nin manaers* and the threat of manaeria! disp!acement
$" important outside shareho!ders or taeovers.U >cherer and 9oss p. 52.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 21
is output %a sca!ar-* p its price* 4 the vector of inputs %positive #uantities-. 7nterior maximiation of
π &ith respect to xi under xiW0 re#uires the firstorder condition p`^f/^xi vi L 0* i.e. the e#ua!it"
$et&een mar7inal reven1e rod1ct of the factor and CpriceC %i.e. renta!- of the factor* &here the
marina! revenue product of a factor is the derivative of revenue p# &ith respect to the emp!o"ment
of the factor* i.e. %under pricetain- p`^f/^xi. ith the usua! s"m$o!s8
p*98 i%vi#
This can a!so $e expressed as e#ua!it" $et&een marina! product of the factor* and real renta!
of the factor measured in terms of the product* M4 iLvi/p.
The secondorder condition is that the marina! revenue product must $e decreasin in x i. The
increase in profit if the firm emp!o"s one more sma!! unit of factor i is p`M4 i vi* and if it is positive*
or if it $ecomes positive for further increases of the factor* the firm finds it convenient to expand the
use of the factor* so the optima! !eve! of factor emp!o"ment must $e &here one more unit of the
factor no !oner increases profit and further units &ou!d on!" mae thins &orse.
(arefu!8 there ma" $e no positive so!ution to this maximiation pro$!em' in other &ords* it
ma" happen that no positive va!ue of x i* ho&ever sma!!* avoids a marina! revenue product inferior
to the iven renta!. 7n this case* since it must $e xi I 0* the firm reaches a Ccorner so!utionC &ith xiL0
and p`M4i K vi. 7t is possi$!e* a!thouh a f!ue* that at x iL0 it is p`M4iLvi.
5.!!. $ost minimization
5.11.1. 7f t&o varia$!e factors i and Q are $oth demanded in positive amounts* then p`M4 iLvi
and p`M4 QLv Q imp!" the &e!!no&n condition M4i/M4 QLvi/v Q' ho&ever* this !ast e#ua!it" can $e
satisfied &hen the t&o other ones are not* and this &i!! mean* as &e no& sho&* that a different
pro$!em is $ein so!ved8 cost minimiation.
A necessar" condition for profits to $e maximied is that the tota! cost of producin the profit
maximiin output $e minimied. 4rofit maximiation can $e achieved in t&o steps8 first* for each!eve! of output* minimie cost* and find ho& this minimied cost varies &ith output* i.e. find the
cost function' second* maximie profit $" findin the !eve! of output that maximies the difference
$et&een revenue* and the minimied cost.
The cost f1nction is the minimumva!ue function
c%v*#- L min v4 s.t. f%4-I# .
This &i!! $e a short-r1n cost function if some factors cannot $e varied' usua!!" the other
ones* ca!!ed variable factors* are the so!e factors that are made to appear in 4.Assume there is a uni#ue costminimiin so!ution 4 for each iven %v*#-. @et 4L%v*#- $e the
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 22
vector function indicatin ho& the so!ution chanes &ith v and #' %v*#- is a vector function ca!!ed
the conditional in1t demand f1nction. Then c%v*#-Lv%v*#-. The &ord Cconditiona!C derives from
the fact that these are the input demands conditional on the !eve! of output.
There is a strict simi!arit" $et&een the cost function in production theor" and the expenditure
function in consumer theor"F21* and $et&een the firmCs conditiona! input demand function and the
consumerCs compensated %or icsian- demand function8 mathematica!!" the" are Qust the same
thin %this is &h" &e use the same s"m$o! to indicate the conditiona! factor demand function
too-. Therefore &e need not prove the properties &e no& !ist $ecause the proofs are the same as for
the expenditure function* cf. chapter H.
As !on as f%4- is continuous and 4 is such that f%4- is strict!" increasin in a neih$ourhood
of 4* the cost function has the fo!!o&in properties8
%1- c%v*#- is nondecreasin in vi
%2- c%v*#- is homoeneous of deree 1 in v
%3- c%v*#- is continuous in vi* for vWW0.
%H- c%v*#- is strict!" increasin in # as !on as #WW0
%5- c%v*#- is concave in vi.
7f the production function is continuous &e can rep!ace the constraint f%4-I# &ith the
constraint f%4-L#' if it is a!so differentia$!e* for interior so!utions %4WW0- &e can use the @aranianapproach &ith e#ua!it" constraint %the \uhnTucer conditions are the more enera! necessar" first
order conditions-. ormu!atin the pro$!em as one of maximiation of c%v*#-* the @aranian
function is v4 λ%#f%4-- &here # and v are iven%22-. The firstorder conditions for an interior
so!ution "ie!d
vi L λ^f/^xi* iL1*...*n
from &hich one derives the &e!!no&n condition
vi/v Q L M4i/M4 Q .This is interpreta$!e eometrica!!". Assume a!! input !eve!s apart from those of inputs i and Q
to $e iven and to cause a cost ?L_sJi*Q%vsxs-. or each iven tota! cost (* the expression
vixiv Qx QL(? maes x Q a !inear function of xi. This function is ca!!ed a restricted %t&odimensiona!-
21 7ndeed a num$er of economists ca!! cost function the consumers expenditure function.22 7n the consumer maximiation pro$!em &e &rite the constraint in the @aranian function as λ%pxm-*
here &e &rite it as λ%#f%x--8 the difference derives from the fact that* in order to o$tain a nonneative
va!ue for the @arane mu!tip!iers in \uhnTucer theor"* the constraint %the expression in parenthesis- must
$e &ritten in such a &a" that it is constrained to $e nonpositive %if there is a minus sin $efore the l-8 in the
case of the consumer* the constraint is mIpx* in the case of the firm it is f%x-I#. Another &a" of puttin the
thin is* that in the consumer pro$!em a re!axation of the constraint re#uires an increase of m* in the cost
minimiation pro$!em a re!axation of the constraint re#uires a decrease of #.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 23
isocost. 7ts eometrica! representation is a do&n&ards!opin straiht !ine in %x i*x Q-space* &ith
s!ope e#ua! to vi/v Q and intercepts %(?-/vi on the a$scissa and %(?-/v Q on the ordinate axis. 7t is
the !ocus of #uantities emp!o"ed of the t&o factors that cause the same tota! cost (. 7ncreases in (
induce a para!!e! out&ard shift of the isocost !ine. (ost minimiation re#uires that the isocost $e as
c!ose as possi$!e to the oriin under the condition that it has a point in common &ith the iven
iso#uant correspondin to the desired output. 7f the iso#uant is smooth* the condition v i/v Q L
M4i/M4 Q imposes that the isocost $e tanent to the i*Qiso#uant associated &ith #. 7n order for this
tanenc" actua!!" to indicate a point of minimum cost* an" isocost c!oser to the oriin must have no
point in common &ith the iso#uant. This is ensured if the iso#uant is convex.
5.11.2. The partia! ana!o" &ith the uti!it" maximiation pro$!em is raphica!!" c!ear in the
t&ofactors case8 in $oth cases &e have a map of straiht !ines and a map of curves' the difference
is that in order to maximie uti!it" &e !oo for the point* on a iven straiht !ine %the $udet !ine-*
that touches the curve %the indifference curve- farthest from the oriin' &hi!e in order to minimie
cost &e !oo for the point* on a iven curve %the iso#uant-* that touches the straiht !ine %the isocost-
c!osest to the oriin.
x2
isocosts iso#uant
x1 iure 5.H
ith n factors* the iso#uant is a surface of dimension n1 in 9 n* the isocost is a h"perp!ane'
the firstorder conditions for an interior so!ution imp!" tanenc" $et&een iso#uant and isocost* and
the secondorder sufficient condition is that the iso#uant surface $e convex. The thin is raphica!!"
evident &ith t&o factors. As in the <M4* convexit" of the iso#uants ensures that* &hen the first
order conditions are satisfied* the so!ution is a global maximum of (* that is to sa"* a !o$a!minimum of (. Mathematica!!"* this secondorder condition can $e expressed* as in the <M4
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 2H
pro$!em* as the condition that at the so!ution xk it is d2%(-W0 for disp!acements from xk that satisf"
the constraint f%x-L#N* and it can $e aain sho&n that this corresponds to the condition that the
!eadin* or natura!!" ordered* principa! minors %startin from the third one- of the $ordered
essianF23 a!ternate in sin startin from positive %remem$er that the pro$!em is formu!ated as the
maximi:ation of (F2H-.
or the reasons exp!ained ear!ier* convexit" of the iso#uant surface a!&a"s o$tains &hen (9>
and divisi$i!it" are assumed and a!! factors are varia$!e.
The condition vi/v Q L M4i/M4 Q can $e rea!ied &ithout the conditions M4 iLvi/p* M4 QLv Q/p
$ein rea!ied' &hen so* factor emp!o"ments are not optima!* the output !eve! is not profit
maximiin. (ost minimiation is on!" one part of &hat is necessar" for profit maximiation8 one
must a!so choose the optima! output !eve!. This !atter choice can a!so $e examined in terms of cost
function and revenue function* see $e!o&. ?ut $efore* &e exp!ore the cost function a !itt!e more.
5.!%. A$m& 'u(n)*uc+er conditions and cost minimization& (ep(ard-s lemma.
5.12.1. (ost minimiation has an imp!ication ana!oous to the A4M. 7f for a iven output #
and iven input renta!s v the firm finds it optima! to uti!ie an input vector 4;:%v*#-* it must mean
that an" other input vector capa$!e of producin # %or more- must cost at !east v4;* in other &ords*
v4;Kv4 for a!! 4 such that f%4-I#N* a resu!t sometimes ca!!ed ,eak axiom of cost minimi:ation*/ACm for short. 7f at input prices v; the firm chooses input vector 4; and at input prices v< the
firm chooses input vector 4< to produce the same output * proceedin in the same &a" as for the
A4M one reaches the conc!usion %v; v<-%4; 4<-K0* more often expressed as
Ov`O4K0.
This imp!ies* for examp!e* that if on!" one input price chanes* the demand for that input must
chane in the opposite direction. %=ote that if inputs &ere measured as neative #uantities the
ine#ua!it" sin &ou!d $e reversed* sti!! this is not the same resu!t as &as derived from the A4M* $ecause here output is ept fixed.-
7n enera!* not a!! inputs &i!! $e used in positive amounts $" a firm' the condition v i/v Q L
M4i/M4 Q must ho!d for inputs $oth used in positive #uantities' the more enera! necessar" first
order conditions for cost minimiation are deriva$!e from the \uhnTucer theorem. 7n this case*
&ith #N the iven output* the function to $e maximied is v4 and the constraints are #Nf%4-K0*
and xiK0* iL1*...*n. The firstorder conditions are therefore %mu!tip!"in $oth sides $" 1-8
23 Exercise8 derive the $ordered essian in the t&ofactors case and sho& that its determinant is positive
if and on!" if the ana!oous $ordered essian of the <M4 in the t&ooods case has a positive determinant.2H 7f the pro$!em is formu!ated as the minimiation of (* then the !eadin principa! minors of the $ordered
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 26
5.13.1. The rofit f1nction π%p*v- is defined as the va!ue function of the %unconstrained-
maximiation pro$!em
max x pf( x )= vx *
&hich ass to find the input vector that maximies profit* as a function of output price and input
renta!s. %The function j%#-Lp#(%#-* profit as a function of output under cost minimiation* is not
ca!!ed profit function.- 7n shortperiod ana!"sis the inputs are the varia$!e ones.
The profit function is on!" defined &hen the condition pLM( "ie!ds a definite optima! output.
This is not the case if the production function has constant returns to sca!e %or if there is perfect
rep!ica$i!it" of p!ants* cf. R5.DD-8 then averae and marina! cost coincide and are constant* and for
a pricetain firm* if pWA(* profits ro& end!ess!" &ith increases in output* so there is no optima!
output* &hi!e if pLA( there is an infinit" of so!utions a!! "ie!din ero profit. Thus the profit
function re#uires sufficiently decreasin returns to the sca!e of varia$!e inputsF 25' this can $e
Qustified in shortperiod ana!"ses $" tain some inputs as fixed' on the contrar"* a long-period
profit function re#uires assumptions on returns to sca!e %a <shaped @A( curve- that not a!!
economists find p!ausi$!e. ?ut precise!" in !onperiod ana!"ses the profit function is irre!evant
even &hen it can $e defined* $ecause entr" &i!! an"&a" maintain profits e#ua! to ero* so the
determination of e#ui!i$rium industr" output does not re#uire consideration of the profit function* as
&e exp!ain !ater. As to the short-period profit function* it is $ased on a rather mis!eadin definitionof profit as revenue minus varia$!e cost* ne!ectin the need to inc!ude amon costs the #uasirents
of fixed factors as opportunit" costs. These #uasirents* if inc!uded in tota! cost and if the
entrepreneur is neither $etter nor &orse than other entrepreneurs at maximiin profit* &ou!d
a!&a"s $rin profit to ero even in shortperiod ana!"sis $ecause the" are the opportunit" cost of
usin the fixed p!ant instead of rentin it out to other entrepreneurs %these &ou!d $e read" to pa" for
the use of the fixed p!ant a maximum amount e#ua! precise!" to &hat &ou!d $rin do&n their profit
to ero-. Therefore the profit of the shortperiod profit function is the sum of true profit and of the#uasirent to $e attri$uted to the fixed factors. As a conse#uence* it ma" $e the case that this profit
is positive $ut the entrepreneur &ou!d do $etter to se!! the firm $ecause other entrepreneurs &ou!d
et more out of that set of fixed factors and so the" va!ue the fixed factors more than she does.
o&ever* the profit function is &ide!" used in microeconometric practice* so &e !ist its main
properties8
25 Exercise 5.%2 h" the stress on sufficiently/ D 7s decreasin returns to sca!e &ithout #ua!ifications a
sufficient condition for the existence of a profit functionD Tr" exp!orin the case in &hich (%#-
as"mptotica!!" approaches from $e!o& a function a$#* &ith a*$W0.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 2+
5.!3. $onditional and unconditional factor demands, inferior inputs, rival inputs,
su4stitution effect and output effect.
5.1H.1. hen the profit function is &e!! defined* for each output price p and vector of factor
renta!s v there is an optima! output and an associated vector 4 of optima! factor uti!iations %the
!atter need not $e uni#ue* $ut 7 &i!! assume it is-. 7n this case &e can define the s1l f1nction +of
the individ1al firm >%v*p- that indicates ho& optima! output chanes &ith factor prices v and the
output price p* and the %vectoria!- 1nconditional factor demand f1nction 4%v*p- that indicates the
associated optima! factor emp!o"ments' it is
4%v*p-L%v*>%v*p--.
7f the profit function is defined for the short period* i.e. &ith some inputs fixed* then on!" the
varia$!e inputs appear in 4 and in v. hen the profit function does not exist* the output supp!"
function and the input demand functions do not exist either8 no uni#ue profitmaximiin output
exists. hen these functions can $e defined* &hat a$out the sin of their partia! derivativesD
7f profit is considered a function of #* its maximiation re#uires so!vin the pro$!em
max$ p$=C( v !$)*
&hose firstorder necessar" condition is the e#ua!it" of product price p* and marina! cost
M(%v*#-8L^(/^#' the secondorder sufficient condition is that M( must $e risin at the optima! #.ence
^>%v*p-/^pW0
the %inverse- s1l c1rve %optima! # as a function of p* &ith p in ordinate and # in a$scissa- is
increasin %as !on as to increase output is possi$!e-* a resu!t actua!!" a!read" reached via
ote!!ins @emma p!us the convexit" of the profit function' $ut it can $e usefu! to see the same
resu!t from different perspectives.
e cannot reach a resu!t on the sin of ^x i%v*p-/^vi direct!" from the condition v iLp`M4i* $ecause xi is not the on!" input use that &i!! chane &hen v i chanes' $ut ote!!ins @emma and
the convexit" of the profit function imp!" ^xi%v*p-/^viK08 the o&nrenta! effect is neative.
5.1H.2. ;oes the a$ove resu!t on input use imp!" ^>%v*p-/^vi K 0 D in other &ords* is it a!&a"s
the case that the optima! output* &hen it exists* decreases if the price of a factor %in positive use-
risesD 4erhaps surprisin!"* not a!&a"s. The reason is that the factor miht $e an inferior input *
defined as an input &hose conditiona! demand fa!!s as output increases* that is* such that^xi%v*#-/^#0 %at !east at the iven input renta!s and in a neih$ourhood of the initia! #-. 7t is indeed
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 32
"A "?
i. DD
The possi$i!it" Qust mentioned of a decrease of the e#ui!i$rium renta! of a factor &hen supp!"
of another factor increases is due to riva!r"* not inferiorit"8 an input is inferior if the demand for it
decreases &hen output increases at given factor renta!s* $ut in this case &ith (9> a!! inputs increase
in the same proportion as output* and 7 have arued that constant returns to sca!e industries is the
on!" !eitimate assumption for the !onperiod $ehaviour of competitive industries &ith possi$i!it"
of p!ant rep!ication* &hi!e inferior inputs re#uire nonconstant returns to sca!eF31. =o&* the
determination of e#ui!i$rium factor renta!s is a !onperiod issue* o&in to the comp!ex* time
consumin adQustments %chanes in outputs* shifts of !a$ourers across firms* etc.- re#uired for
e#ui!i$rium to $e approached on factor marets' therefore input inferiorit"* different!" from riva!r"*
is irre!evant for the marina!ist theor" of income distri$utionF32.
7nput riva!r" can a!so cause perverse effects of shifts in the composition of demand for
consumption oods on e#ui!i$rium factor renta!s. As i!!ustrated in (h. 3* if one !eaves aside possi$!e
perverse income effects then a shift in the composition of demand in favour of oods that use a
factor in a hiherthanaverae proportion tends to raise that factors e#ui!i$rium renta! if technica!
coefficients are fixed* and if there is technica! su$stituta$i!it" the effect on the factor renta! is
norma!!" considered to $e of the same sin* on!" &eaer. ?ut if a factor is specia!ied and used on!"
$" one industr" and is riva! of other inputs in that industr"* then &hen demand for the industr"s
product rises the industr" increases the use of other inputs in order to satisf" the increased demand
and this can cause a decrease of the marina! product of the specia!ied factor and hence a decreaseof the demand for it if its renta! remains the same8 the excess supp!" of the factor &i!! then cause the
renta! of the factor to decrease' so it is not impossi$!e that a rise in the e#ui!i$rium output of the
industr"* a!thouh associated &ith a hiher output price* $e associated &ith a !o&er e#ui!i$rium
renta! of the specia!ied factor. This possi$i!it" !oos exceptiona!* $ut it cannot $e exc!uded.
31 7n the Exercise in footnote 2)DD the industr" &ou!d increase output $" increasin the num$er of optima!
p!ants %o&ned $" the same firms* or $" ne&!" formed firms-* each one producin 3 units* thus at the industr"
!eve! the inferiorit" of factor " disappears. 7ndeed constant returns to sca!e imp!" that expansion paths are
ra"s from the oriin.32 Except possi$!" for specia!ied inputs to $e associated &ith other specia!ied inputs* e.. specia! ferti!iers
to $e used on ver" specia! !ands for the production of specific products.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 35
ratio of &ae to rent* needed to ensure the fu!! emp!o"ment of the increased supp!" of !a$our* &i!!
have to $e reater or sma!!er than the percentae increase in !a$our supp!"D and the share of &aes
in nationa! income &i!! decrease or increaseD The correct ans&ers are in a footnote on the next pae.
%The popu!arit" of the (onstantE!asticit"of>u$stitution %(E>- production function amon
macroeconometricians derived from the c!aim that the share of !a$our in nationa! income did not
chane much for man" decades in the <>A. The empirica! evidence &as ho&ever immediate!"
disputed* and certain!" !oos much !ess convincin no&* $ecause after the 1,+0s the share of &aes
has decreased considera$!"' furthermore there are formida$!e areation pro$!ems $ehind an"
attempt to stud" an econom" as if it &ere producin a sin!e output' a!so* it is tota!!" unc!ear &h"
technica! proress shou!d not a!ter the e!asticit" of su$stitution over the decades' and !ast $ut not
!east* the va!idit" of the marina!/neoc!assica! approach to income distri$ution can $e disputed &ith
stron aruments* as &i!! $e exp!ained in !ater chapters.-
5.!. 6ntegra4ility of conditional factor demands
e touch ver" $rief!" on the dua!it" $et&een some of the notions exp!ained in this chapter.
e have seen that cost function and conditiona! factor demands stand to the production function in
exact!" the same re!ationship as expenditure function and icsian %or compensated- consumer
demands stand to the uti!it" function. Therefore the resu!t reached in consumer theor"* that theexpenditure function or the icsian consumer demands a!!o& the reconstruction of the uti!it"
function %more precise!"* of its convexification-* a!so ho!ds for production theor"8 the cost function
contains the same economica!!" re!evant information as the production function* and from it one
can recover the %convexified- iso#uants. :f course this is on!" possi$!e if the chosen function rea!!"
is a cost function* i.e. if there exists a production function that enerates it' the conditions
uaranteein it are !isted in the fo!!o&in proposition %&e omit the proof* cf. Sarian* 1,,2* p. +5-8
et c(v!$) be a differentiable function ,hich is
(i) non-negative if (v!$) is non-negative!
(ii) non-decreasing in (v!$)!
(iii) concave in v! and
(iv) satisfying homogeneity of degree + in v 4
then c(v!$) is the cost function of a production function#
7t can $e convenient* in app!ied &or* to start direct!" from a cost function rather than from a
Siceversa if the @eontief &ea separa$i!it" condition ho!ds* then a differentia$!e f( x ! y ) can $e
&ritten as f(:( x )! y ) &here :( x ) is a sca!ar function. %e omit the proof.-
<nder &ea separa$i!it"* the firm can adopt a t&ostae costminimiation procedure8 it canfirst determine the costminimiin input com$ination of the xinputs for each !eve! of * and the
resu!tin cost of ' and then it can determine the costminimiin input com$ination of %* - for
each !eve! of output. 7f f%`- has constant returns to sca!e* so does %`-' then the cost function for the
ood can $e &ritten as %v-* &ith %v- representin the unit price of .
The production function must $e additively separa$!e if one &ants that not on!" the marina!
rate of substitution $et&een t&o inputs* $ut a!so the marina! product of an input* $e independent of
the amounts of other inputs. 7t is not eas" to thin of rea!istic examp!es to &hich such anassumption miht app!"* except &hen a firm uses ph"sica!!" separate processes that produce the
same ood usin inputs of different #ua!it"* and one treats the inputs of each process as a sin!e
input $ecause in each process the" are com$ined in fixed proportions8 this miht perhaps $e the
case for some aricu!tura! or minera! product produced on !ands* or $" mines* of different #ua!it".
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 3+
production function is ca!!ed the short-eriod$ or restricted$ rod1ction f1nction. (ost
minimiation can on!" operate on the varia$!e inputs* and the shortperiod cost function resu!ts from
the minimiation of the cost of varia$!e inputs.
(orrespondin!"* there &i!! $e fixed costs and varia$!e costs. ariable cost is the tota! cost of
varia$!e inputs. The costs that are fixed %in the sense of not dependin on the #uantit" produced- $ut
on!" exist as !on as the firm exists* i.e. disappear if the firm is c!osed do&n* are ca!!ed 31asi-fi4ed
costs. Fi4ed costs proper are those costs independent of the #uantit" produced* that must $e $orne
$" the o&ners of the firm even if production is discontinued and the firm is c!osed do&n. ixed
costs are due to irrevoca$!e contracts that o$!ie the o&ners of the firm to pa" them in a!! instances*
e.. the repa"ment of de$ts. ixed costs proper do not inc!ude* for examp!e* those overhead !a$our
costs %manaerCs secretar" and ana!oous accountin !a$our etc.- independent of the #uantit"
produced $ut &hich can $e e!iminated $" c!osin do&n the firm and firin a!! &orers. ixed costs
do not necessari!" coincide &ith the cost of fixed factors. A firm miht have a de$t to $e repaid* that
causes a fixed cost $ut is due to past expenses and has no connection &ith the firms present fixed
p!ant.
or the #uestion &hether the firm shou!d c!ose do&n &hen profit is neative* fixed cost
proper shou!d not mae a difference since the o&ners of the firm must sti!! $ear it even if the firm
c!oses do&n' #uasifixed cost on the contrar" does mae a difference and therefore it must $einc!uded in the varia$!e cost. ?ut for simp!icit" in &hat fo!!o&s there are no #uasifixed costs.
The %short-eriod variable cost f1nction* to $e indicated as S(%v*#-* resu!ts from the
choice of varia$!e inputs that minimies varia$!e cost for each assined !eve! of output.
7t is p!ausi$!e that* since there are fixed factors* the shortperiod production function &i!!
exhi$it decreasin returns to sca!e at !east after a certain !eve! of output' as a resu!t* at !east $e"ond
a certain !eve! of output S(%v*#- &i!! increase more than in proportion &ith output. This is
forma!ied $" assumin that the short-eriod mar7inal cost* i.e. the derivative of varia$!e cost&ith respect to output*
M(%v*#-8L^S(/^#
is an increasin function of # at !east $e"ond a certain !eve! of output. 7n &hat fo!!o&s 7 tae v as
iven and for $revit" 7 often drop the indication of the functiona! dependence on #. @et us no&
define +short-eriod avera7e variable cost as
AS(%v*#- S(/#'
it is possi$!e that initia!!" AS( is a decreasin function of output* indicatin that the fixed p!ant &as p!anned to $e optima! for a certain !eve! of production and up to that !eve! varia$!e cost increases
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 3,
!ess than in proportion &ith output. 7f a!! these manitudes are continuous functions of otuput &e
can stud" the re!ationship amon them. or #L0 it is AS(LM( $ecause for the first sma!! unit of
output averae varia$!e cost coincides &ith the increase in cost. Then if AS( is initia!!" a
decreasin function of #* M( is a decreasin function of # too and is !ess than AS( %in order for the
averae cost to decrease* the additiona! units of output must cause an additiona! cost !o&er than the
averae-. AS( remains a decreasin function of output as !on as M(AS(. ?ut if M( $ecomes an
increasin function of # at !east from a certain !eve! of output on&ards* then sooner or !ater it
$ecomes e#ua! to AS(* and from that !eve! of output on&ards M(WAS( and AS( $ecomes an
increasin function of # %$ecause the additiona! units of output cause an additiona! cost reater than
the averae-. 7t fo!!o&s that AS( reaches its minimum &here its curve crosses the M( curve' if one
no&s the t&o functions* this minimum can $e determined simp!" $" so!vin M(LAS( for #W0.
o&ever* if M( is increasin from the ver" start* then the minimum AS( is reached for #L0. %The
mathematica! proof of these statements is eas" and !eft to the reader as Exercise' $e sure to chec
the secondorder conditions.-
=o& define short-eriod avera7e +total cost as A(L%(S(-/#LA(AS(. A( is
avera7e fi4ed cost* defined as (/#. 7f (W0 then A(WAS(' the vertica! distance $et&een the A(
curve and the AS( curve decreases as # increases* $ecause it measures A(. or the same reason as
for AS(* A( is a decreasin function of # as !on as it is reater than M(* and an increasinfunction of # as !on as it is sma!!er than M(* and as a resu!t it too reaches a minimum &here it
crosses the M( curve. A!! these re!ationships are sho&n in i. 5.58 a particu!ar!" important point is
* &here the A( and the M( curve cross each other' this point determines the minimum average
cost * MinA(* associated &ith the iven fixed p!ant and the iven factor renta!s* and the
correspondin #uantit" of output #g. As !on as the price at &hich the firm se!!s its output is reater
than MinA(* the firm maes a positive profit.
o& does the firm maximie profit in the short periodD ?" e#ua!iin marina! cost andoutput price. This can $e sho&n as fo!!o&s. @et 9Lp# stand for the firmCs revenue* and >(%#- for its
shortperiod tota! cost function* &hose derivative &ith respect to # is the marina! cost M(%#-. Then
πL9>(%#-Lp#>(%#-
and the firstorder condition for a maximum is pM(%#-L0. The secondorder condition is
dM(%#-/d#0*
i.e. M( must $e increasin &here it e#ua!s the iven output price.
The condition pLM(%#- imp!ies a s1l c1rve of the firm &hich coincides &ith part of theM( curve %except that no& the independent varia$!e is the one on the vertica! axis- if on the vertica!
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. H1
p
M(LMS(
A(
AS(
pkLMinA(
A(
: #g #
i. 5.5. Averae %shortperiod- cost A( and averae varia$!e cost AS( &hen marina! cost M( isinitia!!" decreasin' averae fixed cost A( is a rectanu!ar h"per$o!a and e#ua!s A(AS(. =ote that if
AS( inc!uded some #uasifixed costs then the AS( curve &ou!d not start at the same !eve! as the M( curve*
$ut &ou!d have initia!!" a shape simi!ar to that of the A( curve.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. H2
5.1+.3. The idea that a firm &i!! continue to operate even &hen main a !oss* as !on as
revenue covers at !east the varia$!e costs* can derive from considerin fixed cost proper a sun cost*
to $e paid &hether one continues to produce or not* for examp!e interest on the de$t contracted to
start production' $ut this ind of exp!anation is endanered $" the varia$!e confines of the firm as a
!ea! entit"* for examp!e the uncertain existence of fixed costs proper in the presence of !imited
!ia$i!it". A c!earer theor" is o$tained if one reformu!ates the #uestion as reardin* not the surviva!
of the firm* $ut rather the surviva! of a fixed p!ant. The e" is to consider the cost of usin a fixed
p!ant a residua!!" determined $uasirent . The ana!o" &ith !and is c!arificator". 7maine that
someone $u"s a !and &ith $orro&ed mone" in order to rent it to firms* and then discovers that the
rent she can earn is insufficient to repa" the interest on the de$t' this is no reason not to rent the !and
out to firms8 as !on as rent is positive* it is not convenient to !eave the !and id!e' perhaps our o&ner
&i!! o $anrupt* $ut then the !and &i!! $e $ouht %for a price appropriate to its rentearnin
capacit"-* and uti!ied or rented out to firms* $" someone e!se. ixed p!ants are !ie !ands in that*
once created* it is $est to uti!ie them as !on as the" can earn a positive renta!. The renta! earned $"
the fixed p!ant is not made exp!icit in the usua! forma!iation of shortperiod firm cost and profit*
$ut it can $e derived from it $ecause it is the difference $et&een revenue and cost of varia$!e
factors. 7ndeed* a firm miht !ease its fixed p!ants to other entrepreneurs' &hat maximum renta! &i!!an entrepreneur $e read" to pa" for the riht to use a fixed p!ant she does not o&nD A renta! e#ua! to
the maximum residua! o$taina$!e after su$tractin a!! other varia$!e costsF 36 from the revenue one
can earn $" operatin the fixed p!ant' such a renta! &ou!d reduce profit to ero. 7f the renta! is !ess
than that* the profit of the !easee is positive* and entrepreneurs must $e expected to compete for the
riht to use the fixed p!ant* therefore the renta! &i!! rise to the eroprofit residua! Qust discussed. 7f
the entrepreneur is a!so the o&ner of the p!ant* she shou!d inc!ude in the costs the oort1nit cost
of the use of the fixed p!ant the revenue the o&ner ives up &hen decidin not to !ease the fixed p!ant to other entrepreneurs * and this opportunit" cost is the maximum renta! thus determined*
ca!!ed 31asirent $" A!fred Marsha!! $ecause of its ana!o" &ith the rent of !and %the difference is
that fixed p!ants deteriorate-. The entrepreneur &ho first purchases the fixed p!ant is in the same
position as the person &ho purchases a !and' she ma" o $anrupt if the p!antCs #uasirent fa!!s $e!o&
the !eve! expected at the time of purchase renderin it impossi$!e to repa" the de$t incurred to
purchase the p!ant* $ut as !on as #uasirent is positive the p!ant &i!! not $e shut do&n* it &i!! $e
$ouht $" some other entrepreneur at its ne& va!ue %the present va!ue of its ne& expected #uasirents
36 7nc!usive of #uasifixed costs if these are positive.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. H5
=ote that some of the shortperiod A( curves in i. DD have $een dra&n as havin no point
in common &ith the @A( curve. The reason is that if the fixed p!ant consists of several factors
com$ined in fixed amounts* the com$ination ma" $e a su$optima! one for a!! output !eve!s' then the
A( curve correspondin to that fixed p!ant &i!! $e ever"&"ere strict!" a$ove the @A( curve.
7f there is perfect divisi$i!it" and constant returns to sca!e* then Min@A( can $e reached for
an" #' if there are indivisi$i!ities and rep!ica$i!it" of p!ant* then there is a minimum efficient sca!e
of output #k that a!!o&s the firm to achieve an averae cost e#ua! to Min@A(* and the firm can
reach the same minimum averae cost $" producin 2#k &ith t&o fixed p!ants identica! to the one
&hich produced #k* or $" producin 3#k &ith three fixed p!ants* etc. The A( and M( curves &ith
t&o fixed p!ants are the curves &ith one fixed p!ant* CstretchedC riht&ards so as to reach the same
va!ue on the ordinate for a dou$!e va!ue on the a$scissa. 7n i. 5.)$ &e see the A( curves and M(
curves &ith one* t&o and three fixed p!ants of the same t"pe. A pricetain firm considers that it
can se!! an" amount of product at the iven price* therefore as !on as the output price p is reater
than Min@A(* the firm finds it convenient to ro& &ithout !imits $" rep!icatin infinite times the
p!ant associated &ith Min@A(' if pLMin@A(* then the firmCs maximum profit is ero and the firm
is indifferent $et&een producin #k* 2#k* 3#k etcetera' if pMin@A(* in the !on period the firm
does not produce.
A(
M(1 A(1 M(2 A(2
M(3 A(3
Min@A(
#k 2#k 3#ki. 5.)$. Averae and marina! cost curves &ith one* t&o or three identica! p!ants.
5.1,.2. @et us see ho& these considerations connect &ith profit maximiation.
Mathematica!!"* the pro$!em is
max$ π ($)%R($)=C($)%p$=C($)
&here (%#- is the !onperiod cost function* and 9Lp# is revenue. or !eve!s of production re#uirinthe use of a hih num$er of fixed p!ants* if rep!ication of p!ants does not cause a decrease in
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. H6
efficienc" it is !eitimate to treat (%#- as proportiona! to #* $ecause averae cost remains near!"
constant as # varies o&in to the fact that the varia$i!it" in the num$er of p!ants ensures that* even
&hen # is not an inteer mu!tip!e of #k* each p!ant produces a #uantit" ver" c!ose to #k' for examp!e
in $et&eeen #L100#k and #UL101#k the production of each p!ant differs from #k $" at most 1]
and therefore remem$erin the <shape of the averae cost curve of a p!ant averae cost is ver"
near!" e#ua! to Min@A(' in i. 5.) this is evident a!read" &ith three p!ants. Therefore in this case
it is !eitimate to treat the !onperiod averae cost as constant* e#ua! to Min@A(. 7t is then a!so
e#ua! to the !onperiod marginal cost @M(* the derivative of the !onperiod cost function c%#-.
Therefore if pW@M(LMin@A(* no # satisfies the condition pL@M( for a pricetain firm' the
profit π%#-L%pMin@A(-# increases &ithout !imit $" increasin #' the pro$!em max # πLp#c%#- has
no so!ution. 7f pLMin@A(* supp!" is indeterminate $ecause jL0 for an" output !eve!' on!"
pMin@A( "ie!ds a determinate so!ution* #L0. Therefore in this case there is no supp!" function of
the firm* the firms supp!" is either ero* or infinite* or indeterminate.
?ut this fact does not create pro$!ems to the theor". A!! one needs to assume is that if
pWMin@A( the firm &i!! p!an to expand productive capacit" %i.e. costminimiin output- $"
expandin or rep!icatin p!ant* and if pMin@A( the firm &i!! p!an to reduce productive capacit"'
$ut variations of productive capacit" tae time* and since the firm &i!! not $e the on!" one to tae
such decisions* and since it is un!ie!" that there $e perfect s"nchroniation of the decisions of thesevera! firms %possi$!" inc!udin ne& entrants-* it is !eitimate to assume that enera!!" the
expansion or contraction of industr" productive capacit" &i!! $e radua!' thus the shortperiod
supp!" curve shifts radua!!"* and the shortperiod e#ui!i$rium price* determined $" the intersection
of the demand curve &ith the shortperiod supp!" curve* tends to&ard Min@A(F3+. 7f the minimum
averae cost is not the same for different firms* the !ess efficient firms &i!! $e e!iminated $"
competition* and on!" the firms &ith the !east Min@A( &i!! survive8 in the !on period* competition
enforces productive efficienc" in the sense of minimiation of averae cost. The tota! num$er of p!ants &i!! $e such as to $rin output price as c!ose as possi$!e to Min@A( &ithout fa!!in $e!o& it.
The industr" supp!" curve is derived as fo!!o&s. @et @M( n%#- stand for the horionta! sum of
the !onperiod marina! cost curves of n identica! efficient p!ants* &ith # their tota! output and #k
the sin!ep!ant minimumaveraecost output' the supp!" curve consists of a discontinuous series
of up&ards!opin sements "ie!din a sa&!ie shape* the nth sement $ein the portion of the
@M(n%#- curve correspondin to the semiopen interva! Fn#k* %n1-#k-. A!! sements start at a
3+ >"nchronied decisions to a!ter productive capacit" miht cause phenomena ain to co$&e$ c"c!es %cf.
(h. 6 RDD- $ut for !onperiod decisions such phenomena are !ess !ie!" $ecause there is time to revise
decisions in the !iht of information of &hat other producers in the industr" are doin.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. H+
num$er of firms that use techno!oies needin that product* if it is a productive input' the extent of
competition from riva! products* and the maretin strateies of the firm and of its riva!s. =o&* it is
important to understand that perfect product homoeneit" is a ver" rare occurrence' usua!!"
!ocation* or the importance for customers of past tradins that have $ui!t confidence in their usua!
supp!iers* are sufficient to render it cost!" for a firm to extend its sa!es $" su$tractin customers
from other firms* a!thouh often the diverence from perfect!" competitive $ehaviour remains sma!!
enouh that one ma" continue to app!" the !onperiod theor" of the perfect!" competitive industr".
7n other cases the sie of the firm is determined $" the nature of the product8 roc $ands are firms
too* and their product re#uires a certain sie of the &orforce' there is no possi$i!it" of rep!icatin
the p!ant identica!!" &ithin the same firm. >imi!ar considerations app!" to a!! firms $ased on a
strict* creative interaction amon fe& persons. Apart from these cases* one finds the disareement
amon economists mentioned in R5.6.3* &ith some %e.. Edith 4enrose- aruin that in man"
instances firms are a$!e to ro& to enormous sies &ithout an" increase in averae cost and
therefore the !imits to sie must $e found either on the demand side or on the need for o&n capita!
or co!!atera!* and others aruin that the enera! case is <shaped @A( curves $ecause of co
ordination difficu!ties that increase &ith sie.
7n the discussion &hether @A( curves are <shaped or not* &e find here the second meanin
of returns to sca!e mentioned in R5.H* returns to the scale of total cost or* $rief!"* (scale) returns tocost * o$vious!" a notion that assumes iven input prices. These returns are defined $" the elasticit
of o1t1t to total cost* and need for their definition neither that a!! inputs $e increased in the same
proportion* nor differentia$i!it" of the production function* nor divisi$i!it" of a!! inputs' as tota! cost
increases* there ma" &e!! $e discontinuous chanes in the #uantities emp!o"ed of some inputs* e..
some capita! oods ma" $e rep!aced $" capita! oods of a different t"pe* the fixed p!ant ma"
chane* or fixed p!ants ma" $e indivisi$!e and $e discrete!" increased from one to t&o* three etc.'
there ma" then $e some discontinuities in maximum output as tota! cost increases* and the pointe!asticit" of maximum output to tota! cost &i!! not $e defined at those points' $ut ever"&here e!se*
and ever"&here for discrete chanes in tota! cost* the e!asticit" of output to cost &i!! $e &e!!
defined* and therefore returns to cost is a more enera! notion than technical returns to scale. hen
returns to cost are constant* output increases in the same proportion as tota! cost* and therefore
averae cost is constant' &hen returns to cost are increasin* successive increases in tota! cost "ie!d
increasin returns i.e. $ier and $ier increases in output* so averae cost is a decreasin function
of output' &hen returns to cost are decreasin* averae cost is an increasin function of output.(onstant returns is a!so used for the case &hen Min@A( is reached on!" for the optima! outputs
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. H,
correspondin to rep!ication of indivisi$!e p!ants. >ca!e economies is another term used to indicate
increasin returns to cost.
Assumin no& that maximum output is a continuous function of tota! cost and that the @A(
curve is <shaped* Min@A( is reached &here the returns to costs thus defined* in passin from
!oca!!" increasin to !oca!!" decreasin* are !oca!!" constant. 7f the production function is
differentia$!e &ith respect to a!! inputs* then the !oca!!" constant returns to costs at Min@A(* that is*
the e#ua!it" of averae and marina! cost* imp!" !oca!!" constant technica! returns to sca!eF 3, and
therefore imp!" that the pa"ment to each factor of its marina! revenue product exhausts revenue if
pLMin@A(. Thus the fact that the !onperiod cost curve is <shaped entai!s no contradiction
$et&een assumin ero profits of competitive firms in e#ui!i$rium* and assumin that each factor is
paid its marina! revenue product.
7f the firmCs !onperiod A( curve is <shaped* the firmCs dimension is no !oner
indeterminate8 profit is maximied &hen @M(%#-Lp. hen this is the case* the !onperiod industr"
supp!" curve is derived in the &a" a!read" sho&n* &ith firms rep!acin p!ants in the reasonin8
the num$er of firms is endoenous* $ecause competition a!so means free entr"* and in the !on
period there is time for entr". The conc!usion is aain that* as !on as the minimum optima!
dimension of firms is sma!! re!ative to tota! industr" output* if factor prices %factor renta!s- are iven
then to a!! practica! effects the !onperiod supp!" curve of the industr" is horionta! at a price e#ua!to minimum averae cost.
?ut even &hen the <shaped cost curve is not accepted* the supp!" curve of the industr"
remains horionta! at the Min@A( !eve!' the sie of the firms composin the industr" is then simp!"
irre!evant. :ne can for examp!e tae it as determined $" historica! accidents* or $" !imits to the
ro&th of individua! firms derivin from !imits to possi$!e inde$tedness.
7n conc!usion $oth &hen there are* and &hen there arent* constant returns %to cost- $" firms*
the assumption of competition &ith free entr" imp!ies an essentia!!" horionta! !onperiod industr"supp!" curve once input prices are iven* as !on as the minimum #uantit" that a!!o&s a firm to
minimie averae cost is sma!! re!ative to the tota! demand forthcomin at a price e#ua! to that
averae cost. hen this is the case* since in the !on period competition e!iminates inefficient firms*
one can assume a common techno!o" &ithin the industr". e can therefore treat the industryBs
3, e prove this for the t&ofactors case. At the point of minimum averae cost it is 9C % 1
1
98
vL L
-*% 21
2211
2
2
x x f
xv xv 7C 98
v +
== ' this can $e re&ritten f(x+ !x ) % 98 + x+;98 + 2
1
v
v
x % 98 + x+;98 x * &hich
imp!ies that the production function is !oca!!" homoeneous of deree 1.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 50
!onperiod areate production function as exhi$itin constant technical returns to sca!e even
&hen &e cannot do so for sin!e firms.
This conc!usion &i!! a!!o& us* &hen in 4art 777 of the chapter &e formu!ate the neoc!assica!
competitive enera! e#ui!i$rium &ith production* to assume product prices e#ua! to minimum
averae costs* and that at those prices supp!" adapts to the demand forthcomin at those product
prices %and at the factor prices that determine them-.
>o far in this !onperiod ana!"sis &e have taen a!! input prices as given. 7n this case* except
for f!ues on!" one production method &i!! $e the costminimiin one for the production of each
product. o&ever* &hen &e come to determinin factor renta!s endogenously* it ma" &e!! happen
that t&o %or more- methods &i!! coexist in the production of the same product8 the different factor
emp!o"ments need not imp!" differences in averae cost if factor renta!s* for some of the factors*
adapt so as to ensure the same averae cost &ith $oth methods. :ne t"pica! such case is that of
extensive differentia! !and rent8 &hen the same product is produced on !ands of different ferti!it"* a
differentia! rent &i!! arise on more ferti!e !ands* that &i!! mae the uti!iation of different !ands
e#ua!!" convenient. ere &e need not add to &hat &as said on this topic in (hapters 1 and 3.
5.%!. Aggregation
5.21.1. hen the num$er of firms in an industr" is given* and for each firm a profit function*and therefore a supp!" function* exists* then the industr"s competitive supp!" can $e determined as
if forthcomin from a sin!e mu!tip!ant pricetain firm that operates a!! the individua! production
functionsFH0. orma!!"* the area$i!it" condition is that* iven the individua! production
possi$i!it" sets %&hose e!ements are netput vectors- B1* ... * B Q* ... *B of the individua! firms %&here
is the num$er of firms-* the aggregate production possi$i!it" set $e
B L B1 ... B L "∈9 n8 " L _ Q " Q for some " Q∈B Q* QL1*...*.
7n &ords* the areate firm must have no additiona! production possi$i!ities at its disposa! $e"ond a simu!taneous activation of the production processes avai!a$!e to the individua! firms* at
most one per firm. 7n this case* the areate firm can do no $etter in terms of profits than the sum
of the individua! firmsC profits* $ecause it can do no $etter than cop" &hat the individua! firms
H0 This is true as !on as the possi$i!it" is exc!uded that a sin!e manaement of a!! the factors of the
individua! firms %inc!udin the fixed factors &hich need not exp!icit!" appear in the shortperiod production
functions- &ou!d achieve cost reductions. or examp!e* the fusion of five sma!! farms into a sin!e $i farm
miht permit the uti!iation of $i aricu!tura! machiner" &hich &as uneconomica! for each individua! farm'
or there miht $e unnecessar" dup!ication of some indivisi$!e factors %for examp!e* each separate farm miht
need to $u" its o&n tractor if no sharin is a!!o&ed* &hi!e four shared tractors &ou!d suffice for the five
farms-. :n!" &hen one exc!udes such phenomena can one conc!ude that the industr" $ehaves in the same
&a" as if a sin!e firm &ere to operate a!! the individua! production functions.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 51
&ou!d choose autonomous!".
hen this is the case then* converse!"* the firms in the industr" maximie areate profits'
since profit maximiation re#uires cost minimiation* this a!so sho&s that the a!!ocation of the
industr" output amon the severa! firms in the industr" is costminimiin. 7ndeed* since for each
firm output price e#ua!s marina! cost* marginal cost is the same in all active firms * &hich is an
o$vious efficienc" condition8 if marina! cost &ere different in t&o %active- firms* a sma!! transfer
of production to the firm &ith the !o&er marina! cost &ou!d decrease areate cost. Ana!oous!"*
for each varia$!e %and hence* transfera$!e- factor the marina! product &i!! $e the same in a!! firms
&here the factor is used* $ecause e#ua! to the factor renta! divided $" the output price%H1-* aain an
o$vious efficienc" condition8 if the marina! product of a factor &ere not the same in a!! firms %and
!o&er in the firms not usin it-* transferrin a sma!! amount of the factor to the firm &here it has the
reater marina! product &ou!d increase tota! production. These considerations sho& that the
areate firm o$e"s the conditions for profit maximiation &hen each individua! firm does.
5.21.2. 7n !onperiod ana!"sis &ith free entr"* aain the industr"s $ehaviour can $e derived
as comin from the decisions of a sin!e firm* a constantreturnstosca!e firm &hich* for each
vector of factor renta!s and each output !eve!* adopts the factor emp!o"ments correspondin to
minimum averae costFH2
. (ompetition e!iminates !ess efficient firms and thus causes the production function to $ecome the same for a!! firms. 7f the sin!e firms have a (9> production
function* then the industr" acts !ie a iant firm &ith that same production function. 7f the
individua! firms production function "ie!ds <shaped averae cost curves* then %assumin a
sufficient!" sma!! minimum efficient sie re!ative to areate output- $ecause of the possi$i!it" of
rep!ication of p!ants or firms the industr" acts !ie a sin!e (9> firm* &ith a production function
&hich* for each vector of re!ative factor renta!s* "ie!ds the same optima! factor emp!o"ments per
unit of output as the averaecostminimiin choice of the individua! firms.e i!!ustrate &ith a numerica! examp!e. The firms production function is # L 2%1x 1
1x2 1- 1 .
7f $oth factors are mu!tip!ied $" a sca!ar t* &e o$tain #%t- L
21
2
11
2
x xt + ' it is convenient to put
x1x2L1/A' then #%t- L 2t2/%t2A-' and the sca!e e!asticit" of output %remem$er that it is eva!uated at
tL1- is eL2A/%1A- &hich is ⋛1 accordin as A⋛1. Thus for each iven factor proportion this
H1 Assumin that marina! products can $e defined. The reader is reminded that factor renta!s must e#ua!
marina! revenue products.H2 ere as e!se&here in this chapter it is assumed that the averaecostminimiin factor proportions are
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 52
function produces a <shaped cost curve* $ecause it exhi$its !oca!!" increasin returns to sca!e
&hen x1x21* !oca!!" decreasin returns to sca!e &hen x1x2W1* and !oca!!" (9> %and minimum
averae cost- &hen x1x2L1 i.e. &hen #L1. Therefore in the !on period each firm produces one unit
of output* and the iso#uant map of the industry/s !onperiod production function is the radia!
expansion of the iso#uant x2L1/x1 associated &ith #L1' in order to no& ho& much an industr"
input vector %x1*x2- produces* &e must vie& it as t times the vector %x1k*x2k- that produces 1 unit of
output &ith the same factor proportion as %x1*x2-* &here t is determined $" x1Ltx1k* x2Ltx2k such that
x1kx2kL1' in other &ords* inputs %x1*x2- produce t units of output &here t2 L x1x2. ence the
industr"s production function is q L 21 x x . The reader can chec that it has (9>FH3.
e can use this examp!e to c!arif" a forma! pro$!em arisin &ith <shaped cost curves of
individua! firms in !onperiod ana!"sis &ith free entr". >uppose that factor renta!s are v 1Lv2L1'
then in this examp!e Min@A(L1. >uppose that the demand curve is decreasin* and at the product
price pL1 demand is 100.5 units. There is room for 100 firms' if there &ere 101 firms* price &ou!d
o $e!o& 1 and a!! firms &ou!d mae neative profits. ?ut &ith 100 firms the e#ui!i$rium price is
s!iht!" a$ove 1 and profits are positive' hence* if &e assume that firms enter as !on as
pWMin@A(* there &i!! $e entr"' no e#ui!i$rium exists if &e define it as simu!taneous!" re#uirin
riorous!" demandLsupp!" and profitsL0. o&ever* if the aim is to determine a !onperiod
e#ui!i$rium %the averae situation around &hich the econom" osci!!ates-* this is not a pro$!em $ecause even if firms do enter and $rin the tota! num$er of firms a$ove 100* the num$er &i!!
su$se#uent!" decrease* and &e can sti!! assume that the averae around &hich the price osci!!ates is
1. @onperiod e#ui!i$rium on!" aims at determinin the averae around &hich actua! maret
varia$!es osci!!ate. %urthermore it is p!ausi$!e that potentia! entrants tr" to mae an estimate of the
effect of their entr"* and enera!!" the" &i!! rea!ie that it is !ie!" that the sma!! profits associated
&ith 100 firms &i!! disappear if the" enter* and hence &i!! not enter.-
H3 To render exp!icit the industr"s production function startin from the firms production function is not
a!&a"s possi$!e* $ut* as the examp!e indicates* one procedure to find the amount produced from the amounts
of factors emp!o"ed $" the industr" is as fo!!o&s. or simp!icit" assume on!" t&o factors. @et f%x 1*x2- $e the
individua! firms production function "ie!din a <shaped @A( curve' !et x1*x2 $e the iven industr" inputs'
!et ?x2/x1' find x1k such that f%x1k*?x1k- minimies averae cost' !et #k f%x1k*?x1k-' !et tx1/x1k' then the
industr" output is qLt#k. Exercise 5.8 assume that the individua! firms production function is # L x 1x2
%x13/2x2
3/2-/3 and ?L,' find x1k* #k* and q if the industr"s emp!o"ment of input 1 is x1L100.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 53
PART ##
5.%%. PA<*6A1 E=>616?<6>M
5.22.1. As a first step to&ard the stud" of the marina!ist/neoc!assica! competitive enera!
e#ui!i$rium of production and exchane* &e discuss in reater detai! the construction that* more or
!ess exp!icit!"* &e have $een usin in this chapter %for examp!e in i. 5.+DD and in the text
discussin it-8 the determination* via the intersection of a supp!" curve and a demand curve* of the
soca!!ed particular e#ui!i$rium* as it &as oriina!!" ca!!ed* or %its current usua! denomination-
partial e#ui!i$rium* of a sin!e maret studied in iso!ation. The prices and #uantities on other
marets are taen as iven and are considered essentia!!" unaffected $" chanes in the maret under
stud"8 this is ca!!ed the assumption of coeteris paribus %!atin for Cother thins remainin the sameC-.
A famous 1,26 artic!e descri$es this approach as fo!!o&s8
This point of vie& assumes that the conditions of production and the demand for a
commodit" can $e considered* in respect to sma!! variations* as $ein practica!!"
independent* $oth in reard to each other and in re!ation to the supp!" and demand of a!!
other commodities. 7t is &e!! no&n that such an assumption &ou!d not $e i!!eitimate
mere!" $ecause the independence ma" not $e a$so!ute!" perfect* as* in fact* it never can $e'
and a s!iht deree of interdependence ma" $e over!ooed &ithout disadvantae if it
app!ies to #uantities of the second order of sma!!s* as &ou!d $e the case if the effect %for
examp!e* an increase of cost- of a variation in the industr" &hich &e propose to iso!ate
&ere to react partia!!" on the price of the products of other industries* and this !atter effect
&ere to inf!uence the demand for the product of the first industr". %>raffa 1,26* p. 53+-
The partia! e#ui!i$rium approach can a!so $e used for the stud" of imperfect!" competitive
marets* for examp!e a monopo!istic maret.
>ometimes it ma" $e !eitimate to iso!ate not one* $ut t&o %or perhaps even more-interdependent marets8 one examp!e is the stud" of the effects of chanes of the supp!" conditions
and hence of the price of one product on the demand and hence on the e#ui!i$rium price of a
comp!ementar" or of a su$stitute product' another examp!e is the determination of the supp!" curve
of an industr" that uses a specia!ied factor* &hose renta! rises &hen* o&in to a rise in the demand
for the industr"s product* the industr"s output rises.
5.22.2. The partia!e#ui!i$rium supply curve of a competitive industr" can $e a !onperiod or
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 5H
a shortperiod one. The !onperiod supp!" curve is horionta! if factor renta!s are ivenF HH. The
shortperiod supp!" curve is up&ards!opin even &ith iven factor renta!s* o&in to the iven
amounts of some factors. Their derivation has $een i!!ustrated a!read"' &e add some considerations
on their !eitimac" and on the ana!o" $et&een them.
?esides needin the pricetain assumption* the use of a partia!e#ui!i$rium !onperiod
supp!" curve is !eitimate in t&o cases. The first one is &hen the industr" uses on!" a sma!! fraction
of the tota! supp!" of each one of the factors of production it uti!ies' then a variation in the #uantit"
produced $" that industr" &i!! not exert an apprecia$!e inf!uence on its factors renta!s* $ecause it
&i!! cause a ver" sma!! percentae variation of the demand for them. As a resu!t* factor renta!s can
$e taen as iven. 7f the inf!uence on the renta! of some factor &ere sinificant* this &ou!d a!ter the
cost conditions of other products too and then their prices &ou!d chane* renderin the coeteris
pari$us assumption i!!eitimate.
The second case is &hen there is a specia!ied factor demanded on!" $" the industr" one is
iso!atin. This miht $e for examp!e a specia! t"pe of !and indispensa$!e to %and on!" demanded
for- the production of one product* sa" a famous &ine. 7n this case the specia!ied factors renta! is
determined endoenous!"' it &i!! rise as demand for the product rises* so as to maintain the
producers profit at ero' the marina! product of the remainin factors %&hose renta!s are iven-
decreases as output increases' the supp!" curve is up&ards!opin. The independence $et&eensupp!" curve and demand curve* necessar" for partia! e#ui!i$rium ana!"sis* additiona!!" re#uires
that the chanes in the incomes of the o&ners of the specia!ied factor do not apprecia$!" inf!uence
the demand for the product of the industr" under ana!"sis.
Marsha!! enera!ied this second case to inc!ude cases &here the supp!" to the industr" of
some specia!ied factors* different!" from the supp!" of specia!ied !and* is varia$!e in the !on
period $ecause those factors are produced factors* $ut it varies sufficient!" s!o&!" re!ative to the
supp!" of the other factors for it to $e treated as iven in shorterperiod e#ui!i$ration processes.>ome t"pes of fixed p!ants ma" indeed tae a !on time to $e $ui!t' this authories treatin their
supp!" as fixed for e#ui!i$ration processes on time horions of* sa"* a fe& months. %As pointed out
ear!ier* &hat is needed for the determination of the shortperiod supp!" curve and hence for short
period partia! e#ui!i$rium ana!"sis is that the supp!" of fixed factors to the industry* not to each
firm* $e iven.-
The supp!" curve is va!id on!" for comparative!" sma!! variations of the #uantit" produced*
HH This assumes that if there are profits to $e made* there &i!! a!&a"s $e someone %existin or ne& firms-
read" to add further p!ants in the industr". This assumption appears stron!" confirmed $" experience &hen
ade#uate account is taen of barriers to entry* that &e are assumin a$sent here and &i!! $e discussed in
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 55
$ecause for considera$!e variations the coeteris pari$us condition $ecomes dou$tfu!FH5. 4articu!ar
difficu!ties arise &hen one attempts comparative statics of partia! e#ui!i$ria of a capita! ood8 a
chane in the supp!" conditions of a capita! ood %due for examp!e to the discover" of a ne&*
cheaper production method* or to a tax- a!ters the costs and hence the prices of a!! oods for &hose
production that capita! ood is used* and man" of these ma" $e in turn inputs to the production of
that capita! ood* so the supp!" curve of the capita! ood shifts for more reasons than the direct
effect of the first chaneFH6' and the derivation of the demand curve is not eas" to conceive.
5.22.3. A!fred Marsha!! attempted to arue that the !onperiod partia!e#ui!i$rium supp!"
curve of a product can a!so $e do&n&ards!opin* o&in to t&o effects of increases of the
dimension of an industr"8 first* the possi$i!it" $etter to exp!oit sca!e economies' second* an increase
in external effects or externalities. e &as thus tr"in to mae room in the theor" of partia!
e#ui!i$rium for a phenomenon no dou$t often o$served* an association $et&een increase in
production and decrease in price of a product produced $" an industr" &here it &as difficu!t to den"
the existence of competition amon producers. ?ut in t&o artic!es* in 1,25 and 1,26* 4iero >raffa
sho&ed that the decreasin supp!" curve is incompati$!e &ith competitive partia! e#ui!i$rium. e
remem$ered that the existence of unexp!oited sca!e economies is incompati$!e &ith competition
&ith undifferentiated products* $ecause competition re#uires firms to $e rather sma!! re!ative to tota!industr" demand* and the perfect su$stituta$i!it" for the $u"er amon the products of the different
firms in the industr" imp!ies that an" sma!! price reduction $" a firm &i!! attract to the firm enouh
$u"ers to mae it a$!e to se!! the increased output that a!!o&s the exp!oitation of sca!e
economiesFH). As to externa!ities* he noticed that the positive externa! effects due to increases of
economic activit"* e.. reater ease in findin repairmen or transportation firms or si!!ed &orers*
H5 Marsha!! 8rinciples p. 3+H fn. of the oriina! +th edition %1,20' p. 31+ fn. in the after1,H, reset
editions-8 bthe ordinar" demand and supp!" curves have no practica! va!ue except in the immediateneih$ourhood of the point of e#ui!i$rium.U The reason is part!" different for demand curves* cf. $e!o& in
the text and a!so RDD%consumer surp!us-.H6 (hanes in input use can $e sometimes ver" surprisin &hen these interre!ations are taen into account'
their exp!oration has started on!" recent!" and is sti!! proceedin* cf. :pocher and >teedman DDH) Marsha!! had arued that unexp!oited sca!e economies exist* $ut re#uire time to $e exp!oited $ecause firms
are s!o&ed do&n in their expansion $" the need for co!!atera! and therefore for accumu!ated profits* and this
prevents firms from $ecomin indefinite!" !are $ecause the founders of successfu! firms pass the firm to
their chi!dren &ho are much !ess competent and cause the firm to dec!ine and die' he compared the firms in
an industr" to trees in a forest* some of &hich are ro&in* &hi!e others are d"in. This picture is
occasiona!!" confirmed $" facts* $ut no&ada"s more and more it is the case that firms are o&ned $" man"
shareho!ders and run $" hired manaers* and a dec!ine due to incompetent o&nerentrepreneur heirs is rare'
therefore a dec!ine $efore sca!e economies can $e exp!oited is enera!!" imp!ausi$!e' the more so* $ecause
there are more and more iant firms* con!omerates &hich have the financia! potentia! to set up ver" !are
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 56
are ver" se!dom interna! to an industr"* the" enera!!" concern !are roups of firms $e!onin to
different industries $ut connected $" common !ocation or $" simi!ar needed si!!s' these effects
cannot $e admitted in the partia! e#ui!i$rium ana!"sis of one industr" $ecause the" extend to other
products* a!terin their prices* and therefore vio!atin the coeteris pari$us condition. >raffa
conc!uded* and su$se#uent economists have admired the coenc" of his criti#ue* that competitive
!onperiod partia! e#ui!i$rium theor" can admit on!" constantcost industries* or increasincost
industries in the so!e case of an industr" $ein the so!e demander of a specia!ied factor. %hen the
expansion of an industr" affects the renta! of a factor a!so used $" other industries* then the costs of
these other industries are affected as much as in the first industr"* the prices of the products of those
other industries are re!evant!" affected* and aain the coeteris pari$us condition does not ho!d.- This
does not mean that unexp!oited sca!e economies do not exist* it on!" means that their causes and
effects re#uire a different approach8 >raffa suested to a$andon the assumption of perfect
competition and admit that the enera! case is rather one of differentiated products* &hich* if
coup!ed &ith free entr"* ensures nonethe!ess a $road tendenc" of prices to&ard averae costsFH+.
5.22.H. The demand curve is a function that specifies the #uantit" demanded of the product
under investiation as a function of its price. The !eitimac" of assumin the existence of a partia!
e#ui!i$rium demand curve re#uires81- Given prices of other oodsH,' this imp!ies a iven income distri$ution. %This in turn
imp!ies that partia! e#ui!i$rium ana!"ses cannot stud" chanes in the price and #uantit" of a product
induced $" chanes in income distri$ution.-
2- Given incomes of consumers. This re#uires* in addition to a iven income distri$ution* a
iven !eve! of uti!iation of resources %in particu!ar* a iven !eve! of !a$our emp!o"ment-8 this &as
traditiona!!" Qustified $" an assumption of fu!! uti!iation of resources* the tendentia! resu!t of the
&orin of maret economies accordin to the marina! approach* as &e no& from (hapter 3.3- Given preferences* unaffected $" actua! none#ui!i$rium consumptions.
These three sets of conditions too are su$sumed under the expression coeteris paribus. These
ivens are* and must $e* assumed not to chane %or more precise!"* to chane on!" ne!ii$!"-
H+ The readin of $oth >raffas artic!es* the 1,25 and the 1,26 oneDDrefs in En!ish* is stron!" recommended
as the" are exce!!ent examp!es of penetratin reasonin attentive to the economic Qustifications of theoretica!
constructs.H, 7t is a!so possi$!e to consider the demand curve as derived under an assumption that the prices of some
stron!" interconnected oods chane &hen the #uantit" demanded of the first ood chanes' for examp!e if
one considered pro$a$!e that a $i increase of taxes on aso!ine &ou!d considera$!" decrease the demand for
cars* an" estimate of the demand curve for aso!ine not restricted to the ver" short period shou!d tr" to tae
into account the effect on the car maret* inc!udin the possi$!e effect on the price of cars. ortunate!"* for
most industria!!" produced oods the price is rather insensitive to demand* cf. (hapter 11.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 5)
durin the adQustment processes to&ard the partia! e#ui!i$rium* other&ise the e#ui!i$rium &ou!d
!ac the persistence necessar" to ive a ood indication of the averae $ehaviour of the maret' it
&ou!d $e impossi$!e to assume* for examp!e* that the demand curve has the persistence that a!!o&s
a monopo!istic firm to form a reasona$!" correct idea of its position and s!ope %a necessar" premise
to the derivation of the marina! revenue curve-.
7t is then c!ear that the partia! e#ui!i$rium method re#uires that income distri$ution and
areate demand can $e considered iven %a!thouh not necessari!" determined accordin to the
marina!/neoc!assica! approach-* and that preferences can $e considered sufficient!" unaffected $"
the dise#ui!i$rium adQustments. :n this !ast issue* &e have remem$ered at the $einnin of chapter
H Marsha!!s o&n admission that experience irreversi$!" affects tastes. e ma" add here that &hen a
price chanes sinificant!"* o$!iin consumers to a re!evant chane in consumption ha$its* it seems
p!ausi$!e that peop!e &i!! not no& in advance ho& their o&n $ehaviour is oin to chane' the"
&i!! experiment and discover and deve!op ne& consumption ha$its that cou!d not $e predicted from
past evidence* and that often can on!" $e descri$ed as due to a formation* or discover"* of
preferences unti! then undefinedF50. As a conse#uence* the assumption of a &e!!defined demand
curve for prices different from the prevai!in one ma" $e #uestioned* as aain admitted $" Marsha!!
himse!f %cf. a$ove ch. H RH.22-8 hence the assumption %that &i!! $e met fre#uent!" in (hapter 11-
that firms kno, the demand curve facin them must $e treated &ith suspicionF51
.?ut &e must introduce the reader to the dominant ana!"ses* so &e do not further #uestion the
notion of partia!e#ui!i$rium demand curve' ho&ever* !et us not foret that this notion can $e
considered reasona$!" &e!! defined on!" for consumption oods %and perhaps for some non$asic
capita! oods-* on!" for rather sma!! departures from the unti! then prevai!in price* and on!" as !on
as the incomes of consumers %hence income distri$ution and the areate !eve! of activit" of the
econom"- are iven.
5.%. ta4ility of partial equili4ria.
50 The dependence of preferences on experience can $e used for a further criticism of the marina!
approach. 7t is not on!" that if consumption of a certain ood has never $een experienced* the preference for
it cannot $ut $e vaue* and open to modification $" experience. There is a!so the fact that repeated
experience can permanent!" a!ter preferences %e.. peop!e can develop a taste for !istenin to certain inds of
music* for drinin ood &ine* for practicin certain sport activities-. =o&* &hether and ho& man" times a
ood is experienced can depend on prices. This #uestions the assumption of preferences independent of
prices* on &hich the marina!ist/neoc!assica! determination of e#ui!i$rium is $ased.51 irms must have had the possi$i!it" to exp!ore ho& demand depends on price in an economic situation
underoin ver" !itt!e chane in the varia$!es impounded in the ceteris pari$us c!ause. This ma" $e an
accepta$!e assumption in some cases* $ut not in man" other ones' for the !atter cases* one &i!! need theories
exp!ainin firm $ehaviour &ithout an assumption that there is a &e!!defined and no&n demand curve.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 5+
5.23.1. 7f the ood is homoeneous %undifferentiated- then on averae a!! units of the ood
must se!! at the same price. :f course this can on!" $e approximate!" true $ut* as a!read" pointed
out severa! times* the e#ui!i$rium can on!" aim at descri$in the averae resu!tin from the tria!
anderror hi!in of the maret. e can spea therefore of the price of the ood.
Given a supp!" curve and a demand curve* that represent supply price and demand price as
functions of the #uantit" of the oodF52* e#ui!i$rium o$tains &here areate demand for the ood
e#ua!s areate supp!"* or e#uiva!ent!" &here supp!" price and demand price coincide.
@et us examine the sta$i!it" of e#ui!i$rium. Apart from the imp!ausi$!e case of Giffen oods
the demand curve for a consumption ood can $e assumed to $e do&n&ards!opin. %or capita!
oods the issue is more comp!ex* and as arued ear!ier the partia! e#ui!i$rium method is se!dom
accepta$!e* $ut an arument can sti!! $e put for&ard to the effect that an increase in the price of a
capita! ood* &ith other factor prices iven* &i!! tend to reduce the demand for that capita! ood*
$oth $ecause of technica! su$stitution* and $ecause of the rise in cost and hence in re!ative price of
the consumption oods usin that capita! ood as an input.- The supp!" curve is either horionta!* or
up&ards!opinF53. 7n the !atter case the sta$i!it" of e#ui!i$rium is c!ear* under the assumption that
price tends to rise if demand exceeds supp!"* and tends to decrease if supp!" exceeds demand. hen
the supp!" curve is horionta! it is a !onperiod supp!" curve* and the adQustment oes on in a
succession of shortperiod situations* in each one of &hich the num$er of p!ants is iven and thesupp!" curve is a shortperiod* up&ards!opin one. The shortperiod e#ui!i$rium price is sta$!e* and
if hiher than min@A( it induces in the !on period an increase in the num$er of p!ants in the
industr"* that is* a shift of the shortperiod supp!" curve to the riht that causes the shortperiod
52 The Marsha!!ian preference for considerin price the dependent varia$!e thus supp!" price is the price
necessar" to induce a iven supp!" to $e forthcomin* and demand price is the price that induces a iven
demand has the advantae that one can sti!! spea of a supp!" function even &hen the supp!" curve is
horionta!.53 Actua!!"* Marsha!! considered at !enth the possi$i!it" that the !onperiod supp!" curve of a product $e
decreasin* o&in to economies of sca!e achieved $" an averae increase of firm dimension &ith the ro&th
of industr" sie* or o&in to cost reductions due to economies of sca!e externa! to the firm $ut interna! to the
industr"* a specia! case of externa!ities. The first cause &as soon Quded incompati$!e &ith the perfect
competition assumption* that must assume that in the !on period firms are at the min@A( sie' &hat
Marsha!! &as imp!icit!" admittin &as demand !imits to the expansion of individua! firms* and this can on!"
$e discussed $" a$andonin pricetain and turnin to theories of imperfect competition. An examp!e of the
second cause miht $e the increasin averae si!! of specia!ied si!!ed !a$our &hen the dimension of an
industr" ro&s and &ith it ro&s the num$er of &orers &ho have ac#uired hih si!!s o&in to &or
experience* and the resu!t is a communit" &here expertise is reater* &ith a reduction in costs. ?ut such
externa!ities can on!" act ver" s!o&!"* on a time sca!e superior to that of the adQustments contemp!ated in
shortperiod or !onperiod e#ui!i$ration8 the time sca!e one considers &hen one discusses economic ro&th.
urthermore externa!ities externa! to firms $ut interna! to an industr" are ver" rare* enera!!" positive
externa!ities do not reduce costs on!" in one industr" and are therefore incompati$!e &ith partia! e#ui!i$rium.
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 5,
e#ui!i$rium price to decrease and thus to tend to&ard min@A(F5H' the reverse process &i!! o on if
the shortperiod e#ui!i$rium price is !o&er than min@A(. Thus &e o$tain sta$i!it" of the !on
period e#ui!i$rium too.
5.23.2. The ana!"sis suests that it seems !eitimate to assume a tendenc" of the #uantit"
produced of the severa! products to adapt to the demand for them* at prices that tend to e#ua!
minimum averae cost. 7n (hapter 6 it &i!! $e seen that the consideration of adQustment !as can
raise dou$ts on this conc!usion* $ut it &i!! $e arued there that the difficu!ties are not ver" serious.
>o &e have some Qustification for $e!ievin that the assumption that &i!! $e made in the formu!ation
of the enera! e#ui!i$rium e#uations in 4art 777 of this chapter* of e#ui!i$rium product prices e#ua!
to minimum averae costs and of #uantities produced e#ua! to the demand for them at those prices*
ref!ects actua! tendencies. o&ever* the sta$i!it" of product marets thus assumed rests on iven
factor prices and iven demand curves' therefore it does not prove the sta$i!it" of the enera!
e#ui!i$rium of production and exchane* &hich re#uires in addition the sta$i!it" of factor marets
%and* to such an end* cannot assume iven demand curves for products $ecause chanes in factor
renta!s chane incomes and demands-. This &i!! $e discussed in chapter 6.
5.%3. elfare analysis5.2H.1. @et us no& prove that in a partia!e#ui!i$rium frame&or the competitive e#ui!i$rium
of a sin!e maret* determined $" the intersection of demand curve and supp!" curve* is a 4areto
efficient a!!ocation. ?ut &e must c!arif"* a!!ocation of &hatD :f the #uantit" produced* x* amon
consumers* and of income amon consumers and producers* under a tradeoff %ana!oous to a
production function- $et&een income %Lcost- and x. e consider t&o roups of maximiers8
consumers maximie uti!it"* producers maximie their income i.e. profit. The iven prices of a!!
other oods a!!o& their treatment as a Jicksian composite commodity* &hose price can $e madee#ua! to 1 and &hose #uantit" therefore can $e !eitimate!" identified &ith expenditure on oods
other than x* or residua! income "' thus consumer hs uti!it" depends on xh and "h* and &hen a
consumer pa"s p for a unit of xood she is ivin up p units of "ood' the producer ives a&a"
amounts of "ood as cost to produce the unit of xood' thus it is as if x &ere produced $" usin
5H =ote that for the process to push the price to&ard min@A( it is not necessar" that a!! firms have optima!
p!ants' it suffices that there $e entr" of optima! p!ants unti! supp!" o$!ies the price to e#ua! min@A(' this
process &i!! enera!!" $e faster than the process of c!osure and rep!acement of o!der p!ants %the economic !ife
of p!ants and dura$!e capita! oods is enera!!" much !oner than the time re#uired $" their production-* so
one must consider it norma! that a price ver" c!ose to min@A( coexists &ith p!ants that are not optima! and
f petri Adv Micro chapter 5 firms and productionGE 10/03/2016 p. 61
areate rather than foro the possi$i!it" to produce and se!! the ood at the iven price. 7t too
assumes a constant marina! uti!it" of income.
rice
(
#nd1str s1l c1rve
* C
cometitive rice <
A demand c1rve
31antit
i. 5.10. Marsha!!ian tota! surp!us is the area of trian!e A?(* the sum of consumer surp!us %the area of
trian!e ;?(- and producer surp!us %the area of trian!e A;(-.
M( AS(
p* M(* AS(
p ;
A ?
:
( E output
i. 5.11. Graphica! proof that for a firm the area a$ove the supp!" curve up to the price !ine %trapee
A?;p- e#ua!s revenue minus varia$!e cost. hen price is p and therefore the supp!" of the firm is :E*
revenue is rectan!e :E;p* and the area under the supp!" curve :A?; of the firm e#ua!s tota! varia$!e cost* $ecause the area of rectan!e :A?( is varia$!e cost up to output :(* and* $" interation* the area under the
marina! cost curve from ? to ; is the addition to varia$!e cost caused $" increasin output from :( to :E.