37 views

Uploaded by Rudy Martin Bada Alayo

microeconomics

- Chapter-8.docx
- The Costs of Production
- [Eng.economics] Lecture #8
- Chap 005
- Perloff Tb06 Ec300
- Homework 2
- Production Theory (1)
- Developmental Economics
- Question - Answers
- Ch06
- SOL BA Program 1st Year Economics Study Material and Syllabus In PDF
- UT Dallas Syllabus for econ2302.501.09s taught by Mohamed El-komi (mse061000)
- #1 Firms
- Marginal Cost
- Production and Cost Analysis
- Production - Paper
- MAURIZIO CONTI.pdf
- ch06_08_31_08.ppt
- 14
- Low Soo Peng World Economics

You are on page 1of 9

Primary Readings: DL Chapter 2 & JR Chapter 5

In this lecture, we will present a general framework of production technology. We will focus on what

choices could be made; and the issue of what choices would be made will be deferred to the next

lecture when we look into the firms behaviour.

The first part will describe production possibilities in physical terms; while the second part

will recast this description into a cost function framework.

The treatment in this lecture is a bit abstract and quite general. You are required to understand the

relevance of this abstract framework in terms of particular technological processes.

5.1 Production Possibility Sets

There are many ways to describe the technology of a firm, such as, production functions, graphs, or

systems of inequalities. But in mathematical term, these representations can all be expressed as a set.

A particular production plan is y in Rm:

yi > 0 implies that a net amount yi of i-th commodity is produced;

yj < 0 implies that a net amount yj of j-th commodity is used;

y is called a netput vector.

Production possibility set of a firm is a subset Y Rm. A firm may select any vector y

Y as its production plan.

Closed: If the limit of any converging sequence of vectors in Y is in Y.

Convex: Convex combinations of its elements remain to be inside.

Free disposal: If y Y implies that y Y for all y y.

Meaning that: commodities (inputs or outputs) can be thrown away.

Input Requirement Set: V(q) = {z: (-z, q) Y }

z2

V(q)

Q(q)

1

z1

The isoquant Q(q) is usually the boundary closest to the origin of V(q).

We normally do not require that the production possibility set is convex. If so, it will rule

out "start-up costs" and other sorts of returns to scale. (Do you see why?)

For most production possibility sets, it is possible to describe them in item of single inequality of the

form T(y) 0. That is,

Y = {y: T(y) 0}

A function T that describes Y this way is called a transformation function.

Efficient Production

An efficient production implies that it is not possible to either unilaterally increase the

output(s) or unilaterally decrease the input(s) while still remaining in Y.

For those technologies that have a single output can be described by a production function, which

has both the theoretical and empirical appeal.

The netput vector has the form: (-z, q), where q is the output.

If the technology has a transformation function T, i.e., Y = {(-z, q): T(-z, q) 0}, then under

certain regularity conditions, we can solve T(-z, q) = 0 for all q, which leads to another function: q

= f(z). This function f is the production function.

The specification of q = f(z) involves the notion of efficiency since it represents the maximum

output level that can be achieved with the input, i.e.,

f(z) = max{q: T(-z, q) 0}.

With a single output, the input requirement set V(q) is convex if and only if the corresponding

production function f(z) is a quasiconcave function.

With a given production function q = f(z), the marginal rate of technical substitution

(MRTS) between two inputs i and j is defined as follows:

f ( z ) / zi

MRTSij ( z )

.

f ( z ) / z j

Normally, MRTSij depends on the specification of all inputs. We can use MRTS to define separable

production functions, which involves regrouping the inputs into several mutually exclusive and

exhaustive subsets. For details, refer to p.221 of Jehle & Reny.

Elasticity of Substitutions

For a production function f(z), the elasticity of substitution between inputs i and j at the point z is

defined as

d ln( z j / z i )

d ln( z j / z i )

ij (z )

d ln(MRTS ij (z )) d ln( f i (z ) / f j (z ))

d ( z j / zi )

f i (z ) / f j (z )

,

z j / z i d ( f i (z ) / f j (z ))

where fi and fj are the marginal products of inputs i and j, and d(.) is the total differentiation.

MRTS is a local measure of substitutability between two inputs in producing a given level

of output. MRTS is not independent of the units of measurement.

The elasticity of substitution is defined as the percentage change in the input proportion

(zj/zi) associated with a 1 percent change in the MRTS between the two inputs. The

elasticity of substitution is unitless.

In general, the closer the elasticity of substitution is to zero, the more difficult substitution

between the inputs; the larger it is, the easier substitution between them.

The constant elasticity of substitution (CES) production function has the following form:

q f (z )

1/

z

i 1

i i

, where

i 1

1 and i 0 i.

1

ij ( z )

i j.

1

Correspond to the case when 0. (ij 1)

The basic functional form is

m

q f (z ) z i i .

i 1

Correspond to the case when - . (ij 0)

The functional form is

q = f(z) = min{1z1, , mzm}.

The easiest way of proving this result is to check the corresponding MRTS ij of CES

production function as - , which lead to specific isoquants that are unique to

Leontief technology.

Another function form for the Leontief production function is as follows:

q f (z ) min{

z

z1

, , m }.

a1

am

It is clear from the function specification that a Leontief technology uses inputs in fixed

proportion, which implies that there is a single fixed formula for production.

Returns to Scale

1. Constant returns to scale if f(tz) = t f(z) for all t > 1 and all z.

2. Increasing returns to scale if f(tz) > t f(z) for all t > 1 and all z.

3. Decreasing returns to scale if f(tz) < t f(z) for all t > 1 and all z.

The most natural case of decreasing returns to scale is the case where we are unable to

replicate some inputs. In fact, it can always be assumed that decreasing returns to scale is due

to the presence of some fixed input.

To see this, let f(z) be a production function with decreasing returns to scale. Suppose that we

introduce another "new input" and measured by z0. Now define a new production function:

F(z0, z) = z0 f(z/z0).

It is easy to see that F exhibits constant returns to scale. In this sense, the original decreasing

returns technology f(z) can be thought as a restriction of the constant returns technology F(z0,

z) that results from setting z0 = 1.

Elasticity of Scale

The elasticity of scale is a local measure of returns to scale. It, defined at a point, specifies the

instantaneous percentage change in output as a result of 1 percent increase in all inputs:

m

(z ) lim

t 1

d ln( f (tz ))

d ln(t )

f (z ) z

i 1

f (z )

We say that returns to scale are locally constant, increasing, or decreasing when (x) is equal to,

greater than, or less than one.

From the definition of a homogenous production function, differentiation with respect to k, evaluated at

k=1, we have sy = xifi where fi f/xi.

A production function homogenous of degree s, the marginal product of each factor is homogenous of

degree s-1. To show this, differentiate with respect to xi.

5.3 The Cost Function

Basic Settings:

output vector: q R+n;; input vector: z R+m;

input factor price vector: w R+m;

Recall that for the given output vector q, the input requirement set is defined as

c(w, q) = min wz

s.t. z V(q)

defined for all w 0, q 0.

If there is a single output and the production technology is fully represented by the production

function q = f(z), then

c(w, q) = min wz

s.t. f(z) q

If z(w, q) solves this minimization problem, then

c(w, q) = wz(w, q)

The solution z(w, q) is referred to as the firm's conditional input demand functions (also

known as conditional factor demand functions), since it is conditional on the level of

output q, which at this point is arbitrary and so may or may not be profit-maximizing.

The inequality constraint can usually be replaced by the equality.

Consider the following cost-minimizing problem:

c(w, q) = min wz

s.t. f(z) = q

Then the corresponding Lagrange function is

L(z, ) = wz - (f(z) - q)

w f ( z*) (FOC for some interior solution z*)

wi

f ( z*) / z i

MRTS ij

w2

f (z*) / z j

i , j 1, , m.

which leads to the geographical illustration of the cost minimization (tangency condition) indicated as

below.

Factor 2 (z2)

C = w1 z1 + w2 z2 (Isocost)

Factor 1 (z1)

The above figure indicates that there is also a second-order condition that must be checked, namely, the

isoquant must lie above the isocost line. This, for the case of two inputs, leads to that the bordered

Hessian matrix of the Lagrangian,

2L 2L

2L

2

z1 z1z 2 z1 f

f 12 f1

11

2L 2L 2L

21

22

2

2

z 2 z1 z 2 z 2

f 1 f 2 0

2

2

2L

L

L

2

z1 z1

has a negative determinant.

Examples:

Cost function for the Cobb-Douglas technology: q = K1/2 L1/2, where K is the capital (with

a unit price of w1 - rental) and L is the labor (with a unit price of w2 - wage). Then the

corresponding cost function is

c ( w1 , w2 ; q ) 2q w1 w2

For the general Cobb-Douglas production function:

m

q f (z ) z i i .

i 1

c (w , q ) q

1/

i /

, with i

i 1

Cost function for CES Technology: q = (az1 + bz2)1/, by using the first-order Lagrangian

conditions, we can derive the cost function given by:

w

c( w1 , w2 ; q ) q 1

a

wi

i 1 i

m

w

2

b

r

1/ r

, with r

( 1).

1

q f (z ) min{

z

z1

, , m }.

a1

am

General Properties of Cost Functions

1. Zero when q = 0.

2. Continuous on its domain

3. For any all w > 0, strictly increasing and unbounded above in y.

4. Increasing in w.

5. Homogenous of degree one in w.

6. Concave in w.

For the given cost minimization problem, the solution z(w, q) is the firm's conditional input demand

function. Applying the usual argument, z(w, q) must satisfy the first-order conditions:

f ( z (w , q )) q,

w f ( z ( w , q )) 0.

Differentiating these identities with respect to w we will have the following:

f (z ( w , q ))z ( w , q )) 0

I 2 f ( z ( w , q ))z (w , q )) f (z ( w , q )) ( w , q )) 0

which, in term of matrices, become:

2 f ( z )

f ( z )

f ( z ) T

0

z ( w , q )

I

( w , q ) 0

From this, we can solve for the substitution matrix z(w, q) by taking the inverse of the bordered

Hessain matrix:

2 f ( z )

z ( w , q )

( w , q )

f ( z )

f ( z ) T

0

I

0

This result is in fact associated with comparative statics of the conditional input demand functions

with respect to the input prices.

Shephard's Lemma: (The derivative property) Let z(w, q) be the firm's conditional input demand

function. Assume that c(w, q) is differentiable at w with w > 0, and

c ( w, q )

z i ( w, q ),

wi

i 1,..., n.

Shephard's lemma implies that the cost function is a non-decreasing function of input

prices.

It is easy to see that the conditional input demand functions are homogeneous of degree 0.

Note:

Recall that the cost function can be expressed as the value of conditional input demands:

c(w, q) = wz(w, q).

In short-run, some of the inputs are fixed. Let zf be the vector of fixed inputs, zv the vector of

variable inputs. We also break the vector of input prices w = (wv, wf).

The short-run conditional input demand functions: zv(w, q, zf).

Short-run cost function is then given by:

sc(w, q, zf) = wv zv(w, q, zf) + wf zf SVC + FC = STC

Short-run average cost (SAC) = sc(w, q, zf)/q

Short-run average variable cost (SAVC) = SVC/q

Short-run average fixed cost (SAFC) = FC/q

Short-run marginal cost (SMC) = sc(w, q, zf)/q

In the long-run, all production factors are variable. In this case, the firm must optimize in the

choice of zf. We can express the long-run cost function in terms of the short-run cost function

Let zf(w, q) be the optimal choice of the fixed inputs, and let zv(w, q) = zv(w, q, zf(w, q)).

Then the long-run cost function is given by:

c(w, q) = wv zv(w, q) + wf zf (w, q) = sc(w, q, zf(w, q)).

Long-run average cost (LAC) = c(w, q)/q

Long-run marginal cost (LMC) = c(w, q)/q

For ease of presentation, we drop the argument of w (the fixed input prices) assume a single fix input z.

Then, c(q) = sc(q, z(q)).

For a given output q*, let z* = z(q*) is the associated (optimal) long-run demand for the fixed

input. Then it is clear that

The short-run cost, sc(q, z*), must be least as large as the long-run cost, c(q, z(q)), for all

levels of output.

The short-run cost will equal to the long-run cost at the output q = q*, i.e.,

sc(q*, z*) = sc(q*, z(q*)) = c(q*).

This implies that the long-run and the short-run cost curves must be tangent at q*.

The above result follows from the following argument, which comes from the envelope

theorem:

dc(q*)

dsc (q*, z ( q*) sc (q*, z*) sc ( q*, z*) dz ( q*)

sc (q*, z*)

,

dq

dq

q

z

dq

q

since z* is the optimal choice of the fixed input at the output level q*, which implies that

sc ( q*, z*)

0.

z

Finally, note that if the long-run and short-run cost curves are tangent, the long-run and

short-run average cost curves must also be tangent. In other word, the long-run average

cost curve is the lower envelope of the short-run cost curves.

The geometric illustration of the above result is as follows:

AC

SAC

LAC

AC(q*,z*)

q*

Derivation of Cobb-Douglas Production Function from CES Form

It suffices to consider the case for n = 2. Note that

q f ( z1 , z 2 ) z1 (1 ) z 2

1/

We need to work out the limit of f as 0. Since ( (z1) + (1- ) (z2) ) 1 as 0, the limiting

problem of f as 0 becomes an indeterminate form of 0. To find the limit of this nature, we have to

find the limit of the logarithm of f:

ln(z1 (1 ) z 2 )

lim ln f ( z1 , z 2 ) lim

0

0

0

1

(ln z1 ) (1 )(ln z 2 ) ln[ z1 z 12 ]

lim

(Here we have used two results from Calculus: (1) the formula for the derivative of ax: d(ax)/dx = (ln a)

(ax); and (2) L'Hopital's Rule.) Therefore, we have

lim f ( z1 , z 2 ) z1 z 12 .

0

Additional References:

Arrow, K. J., H. Chenery, B. Minhas, and R. M. Solow (1961) "Capital-Labor Substitution and

Economic Efficiency," The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 43, 225-250.

Blackorby, C. and R. R. Russell (1989) "Will the Real Elasticity of Substitution Please Stand Up? (A

Comparison of the Allen/Uzawa and Morishima Elasticities)," American Economic Review, vol.

79, 882-888.

Diewert, W. E. (1971) "An Application of the Shephard Duality Theorem: A Generalized Leontief

Production Function," Journal of Political Economy, vol. 79, 481-507.

Diewert, W. E. (1975) Applications of Duality Theory, in Frontiers of Quantitative Economics, ed.

M. D. Intriligator and D. A. Kendricks, North Holland, Amsterdam.

Diewert, W. E. (1982) Duality Approaches to Microeconomic Theory, in Handbook of Mathematical

Economics, vol. 2, ed. K. J. Arrow and M. D. Intriligator, North Holland, Amsterdam.

Nadiri. M. I. (1982) Producers Theory, in Handbook of Mathematical Economics, vol. 2, ed. K. J.

Arrow and M. D. Intriligator, North Holland, Amsterdam.

Shephard, R. W. (1970) Theory of Cost and Production Functions. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Uzawa, H. (1962) "Production Functions with Constant Elasticities of Substitution," The Review of

Economic Studies, vol. 29, 291-299.

- Chapter-8.docxUploaded byAndika Saputra
- The Costs of ProductionUploaded byMurtaza Ali Shah
- [Eng.economics] Lecture #8Uploaded byHưng Nguyễn
- Chap 005Uploaded byCitra Dewi Wulansari
- Perloff Tb06 Ec300Uploaded byshahid_hussain_41
- Homework 2Uploaded byTan Pipeng
- Production Theory (1)Uploaded byAman Ashwini
- Developmental EconomicsUploaded byUmer Rehman
- Question - AnswersUploaded bySumit Kumar Awkash
- Ch06Uploaded bypalak32
- SOL BA Program 1st Year Economics Study Material and Syllabus In PDFUploaded byShamim Akhtar
- UT Dallas Syllabus for econ2302.501.09s taught by Mohamed El-komi (mse061000)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- #1 FirmsUploaded by윤종인
- Marginal CostUploaded bySylvia Nabwire
- Production and Cost AnalysisUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- Production - PaperUploaded byLea Ratay
- MAURIZIO CONTI.pdfUploaded bySilver Marvel
- ch06_08_31_08.pptUploaded byanon_946247999
- 14Uploaded byChristianReyes
- Low Soo Peng World EconomicsUploaded byLow Soo Peng
- Cost of ProductionUploaded byArvind NANDAN SINGH
- Business Economics V1Uploaded byAnees Merchant
- Engineering & Managerial Economics EHU501Uploaded byrajapatna
- Assignment 4 Group 1Uploaded byHaseeb Nawaz
- A Longrun Macroeconomic ModelUploaded byderelii
- CFO10e_ch13macro-1Uploaded byThalia Sanders
- Micro Class Notes Ch13 ProdcostUploaded byKatherine Sauer
- Econ294C QuizUploaded byAudrey Jackson
- Law of Diminishing Returns - CopyUploaded byVaibhav Rai
- Equilibrium , demand and supplyUploaded byKomal Sahu

- Graduate Fundamentals Syl Lab UsUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- FishboneUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Tares 3.2 - Formato_RecensionUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Amazon 2014Uploaded byDavid Chikhladze
- BootstrappingMath by RmUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Resol Vien DoUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Ols Regression in excelUploaded byTan Tar
- Questions Sampa VideoUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- ejopreal-mascarenasUploaded byOmar Crespo
- Aswath Damodaran Tesla ValuationUploaded byHarshVardhan Sachdev
- T3 COSTOS y CotizacionesUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Experiment oUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Rombo.docUploaded byjerson roca
- Caso.sole.Nena MalaUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Trabajo Grupal 2Uploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- ArtigosUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Value at Risk ModelsUploaded bysefiplan
- VarUploaded byJyoti Satsangi
- Ch 2 ExamplesUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Punto-2-avance-T3-3Uploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Tasa de Asig y Costeo v y AUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- 3firmPortfolioExample.xlsUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Ejemplo APVUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Sistemas CosteoUploaded byJavier Plata
- Casos Practicos de Liquidacion de Imstos 1Uploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- mrd_qrt_ddUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- varengUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- 133Case3DRUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Costos Absorbentes y Variables 1Uploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo
- Var AnalysisUploaded byRudy Martin Bada Alayo

- Macro Notes - VollrathUploaded byjoydrambles
- ECON-210 MidTermTest-2 AnsKey Fall 2011-1Uploaded byAmina Bejos
- Production Function- Eco PptUploaded bydeepsonu15685
- Me Slides Session 3Uploaded bySa_ed_M_Hassan_5939
- ECO401 Midterm 23Uploaded byKamil Hanna
- summary-book-microeconomics-pindyck-rs-and-rubinfeld-dary-of-the-book-chapter-1-7.pdfUploaded byAnand
- Chapter 19Uploaded byAntonella Carmelino
- me 3rd unitUploaded bypraveena
- Chapter 9Uploaded bynaveen9622
- Production NewUploaded byAbhishek Agarwal
- Chapter 5 - Theory of ProductionUploaded byArup Saha
- ch08Solution manualUploaded byStoneCold Alex Mochan
- lec18 Theory of ProductionUploaded byHardik Gupta
- Production CostUploaded byrf_1238
- production theory.pptUploaded byGoutam Reddy
- Practice Multiple Choice1Uploaded byrajman22
- Theory of ProductionUploaded byAnvesh Kasireddy
- Befa Unit IIIUploaded byNaresh Guduru
- Edgeworth BoxUploaded bycahyo_icb
- 121-1004Uploaded byapi-27548664
- New Microsoft Word Document (2)Uploaded bymas_999
- eco-1-July-08Uploaded bymehtakvijay
- Economics project.docxUploaded byGanesh Ojha
- Production and Cost AnalysisUploaded bySurya Reddy
- Baye Chap005.pptUploaded bySagita Simanjuntak
- Chapter 7Uploaded byammend
- -MICROECONOMICS ch07ANNEX.docxUploaded bySabrina Go
- Economics I 1005Uploaded bymeetwithsanjay
- Chapter 7 for students.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 7EqEOhU3