Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Suppose that a firm produces two different outputs, the quantities of which are represented by \(q_{1}\) and \(q_{2}\). In general, the firm's total costs can be represented by \(C\left(q_{1}, q_{2}\right)\). This function exhibits economies of scope if \(C\left(q_{1}, 0\right)+C\left(0, q_{2}\right)>C\left(q_{1}, q_{2}\right)\) for all output levels of either good. a. Explain in words why this mathematical formulation implies that costs will be lower in this multiproduct firm than in two single-product firms producing each good separately. b. If the two outputs are actually the same good, we can define total output as \(q=q_{1}+q_{2} .\) Suppose that in this case average cost \((=C / q)\) decreases as \(q\) increases. Show that this firm also enjoys economies of scope under the definition provided here.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Answer: A multiproduct firm enjoys economies of scope when its total cost of producing two different outputs jointly is lower than the sum of the total costs of producing the outputs separately. This is shown in the mathematical formulation \(C\left(q_{1}, 0\right)+C\left(0, q_{2}\right)>C\left(q_{1}, q_{2}\right)\), which represents the condition that the total cost of producing \(q_1\) units of output 1 separately and \(q_2\) units of output 2 separately is higher than the total cost of producing both outputs together.

Step by step solution

01

a. Explaining economies of scope in multiproduct firms

By definition, a firm exhibits economies of scope when its total cost of producing two different outputs together, i.e., \(C\left(q_{1}, q_{2}\right)\), is lower than the sum of total costs of producing the outputs separately, i.e., \(C\left(q_{1}, 0\right)+C\left(0, q_{2}\right)\). In other words, the firm's total costs are lower when it produces multiple goods instead of each good independently. The mathematical formulation \(C\left(q_{1}, 0\right)+C\left(0, q_{2}\right)>C\left(q_{1}, q_{2}\right)\) represents this condition, as it indicates that the total cost of producing \(q_{1}\) units of output 1 separately and \(q_{2}\) units of output 2 separately (\(C(q_1, 0) + C(0, q_2)\)) is higher than the total cost of producing both outputs together (\(C(q_1, q_2)\)). This means that the given multiproduct firm can save on total production costs by producing the two outputs jointly, rather than having each good produced separately by different firms. Hence, the multiproduct firm enjoys economies of scope.
02

b. Showing economies of scope in the case of average cost decreasing with q

Now, let's assume the two outputs are the same good. Therefore, the total output can be defined as \(q=q_{1}+q_{2}\). Suppose that the average cost \((=C / q)\) decreases as \(q\) increases. Recall that the definition of economies of scope is given by the inequality \(C\left(q_{1}, 0\right)+C\left(0, q_{2}\right)>C\left(q_{1}, q_{2}\right)\) for all output levels of either good. So let's analyze the relationship between average cost and total cost for the firm when it produces both outputs together: 1. The average cost is given by \(AC=\frac{C}{q}\), where \(q=q_{1}+q_{2}\). 2. The total cost of producing output \(q\) is given by \(C(q)=AC\times q\). Now, let's denote the total cost of producing \(q_{1}\) units of output 1 and \(q_{2}\) units of output 2 separately by \(C_1\) and \(C_2\), respectively: 1. \(C_1 = C(q_1, 0) = AC_1\times q_1\) 2. \(C_2 = C(0, q_2) = AC_2\times q_2\) Since the average cost decreases as \(q\) (the sum of output 1 and output 2) increases, \(AC\) at output level \(q\) is lower than average costs for any output level strictly below \(q\). That means that \(AC<AC_1\) and \(AC<AC_2\). Therefore, \(C(q) = AC\times q < AC_1\times q_1 + AC_2\times q_2 = C_1+C_2\), which can be rewritten as \(C(q_1, q_2)< C(q_1, 0) + C(0, q_2)\), since \(C(q) = C(q_1, q_2)\). This is the definition of economies of scope. Thus, it can be concluded that when average cost decreases as total output increases, the firm also enjoys economies of scope.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

The CES production function can be generalized to permit weighting of the inputs. In the two-input case, this function is $$q=f(k, l)=\left[(\alpha k)^{\rho}+(\beta l)^{\rho}\right]^{\gamma / \rho}$$ a. What is the total-cost function for a firm with this production function? Hint: You can, of course, work this out from scratch; easier perhaps is to use the results from Example 10.2 and reason that the price for a unit of capital input in this production function is \(v / \alpha\) and for a unit of labor input is \(w / \beta\) b. If \(\gamma=1\) and \(\alpha+\beta=1,\) it can be shown that this production function converges to the Cobb-Douglas form \(q=k^{\alpha} l^{\beta}\) as \(\rho \rightarrow 0 .\) What is the total cost function for this particular version of the CES function? c. The relative labor cost share for a two-input production function is given by wl/ \(v k .\) Show that this share is constant for the Cobb-Douglas function in part (b). How is the relative labor share affected by the parameters \(\alpha\) and \(b ?\) d. Calculate the relative labor cost share for the general CES function introduced above. How is that share affected by changes in \(w / v ?\) How is the direction of this effect determined by the elasticity of substitution, \(\sigma\) ? How is it affected by the sizes of the parameters \(\alpha\) and \(\beta ?\)

Suppose the total-cost function for a firm is given by $$C=q(v+2 \sqrt{v w}+w)$$ a. Use Shephard's lemma to compute the (constant output) demand function for each input, \(k\) and \(l\) b. Use the results from part (a) to compute the underlying production function for \(q\) c. You can check the result by using results from Example 10.2 to show that the CES cost function with \(\sigma=0.5, \rho=-1\) generates this total-cost function.

Many empirical studies of costs report an alternative definition of the elasticity of substitution between inputs. This alternative definition was first proposed by \(\mathrm{R}\). G. \(\mathrm{D}\). Allen in the \(1930 \mathrm{s}\) and further clarified by H. Uzawa in the 1960 s. This definition builds directly on the production function-based elasticity of substitution defined in footnote 6 of Chapter 9 : \(A_{i j}=C_{i j} C / C_{i} C_{j},\) where the subscripts indicate partial differentiation with respect to various input prices. Clearly, the Allen definition is symmetric. a. Show that \(A_{i j}=e_{x_{i}, w_{j}} / s_{j},\) where \(s_{j}\) is the share of input \(j\) in total cost. b. Show that the elasticity of \(s_{i}\) with respect to the price of input \(j\) is related to the Allen elasticity by \(e_{s_{r}, p_{j}}=s_{j}\left(A_{i j}-1\right)\) c. Show that, with only two inputs, \(A_{k l}=1\) for the CobbDouglas case and \(A_{k l}=\sigma\) for the CES case. d. Read Blackorby and Russell (1989: "Will the Real Elas- ticity of Substitution Please Stand Up?") to see why the Morishima definition is preferred for most purposes.

Suppose the total-cost function for a firm is given by $$C=q w^{2 / 3} v^{1 / 3}$$ a. Use Shephard's lemma to compute the (constant output) demand functions for inputs \(l\) and \(k\) b. Use your results from part (a) to calculate the underlying production function for \(q\)

An enterprising entrepreneur purchases two factories to produce widgets. Each factory produces identical products, and each has a production function given by $$q_{i}=\sqrt{k_{i} l_{i}} \quad i=1,2$$ The factories differ, however, in the amount of capital equipment each has. In particular, factory 1 has \(k_{1}=25\) whereas factory 2 has \(k_{2}=100 .\) Rental rates for \(k\) and \(l\) are given by \(w=v=\$ 1\) a. If the entrepreneur wishes to minimize short-run total costs of widget production, how should output be allocated between the two factories? b. Given that output is optimally allocated between the two factories, calculate the short-run total, average, and marginal cost curves. What is the marginal cost of the 100 th widget? The 125 th widget? The 200 th widget? c. How should the entrepreneur allocate widget production between the two factories in the long run? Calculate the long-run total, average, and marginal cost curves for widget production. d. How would your answer to part (c) change if both factories exhibited diminishing returns to scale?

See all solutions

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free