Hubbry Logo
Returns to scaleReturns to scaleMain
Open search
Returns to scale
Community hub
Returns to scale
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Returns to scale
Returns to scale
Returns to scale
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In economics, the concept of returns to scale arises in the context of a firm's production function. It explains the long-run linkage of increase in output (production) relative to associated increases in the inputs (factors of production).

In the long run, all factors of production are variable and subject to change in response to a given increase in production scale. In other words, returns to scale analysis is a long-term theory because a company can only change the scale of production in the long run by changing factors of production, such as building new facilities, investing in new machinery, or improving technology.

There are three possible types of returns to scale:

  • If output increases by the same proportional change as all inputs change then there are constant returns to scale (CRS). For example, when inputs (labor and capital) increase by 100%, output increases by 100%.
  • If output increases by less than the proportional change in all inputs, there are decreasing returns to scale (DRS). For example, when inputs (labor and capital) increase by 100%, the increase in output is less than 100%. The main reason for the decreasing returns to scale is the increased management difficulties associated with the increased scale of production, the lack of coordination in all stages of production, and the resulting decrease in production efficiency.
  • If output increases by more than the proportional change in all inputs, there are increasing returns to scale (IRS). For example, when inputs (labor and capital) increase by 100%, the increase in output is greater than 100%. The main reason for the increasing returns to scale is the increase in production efficiency due to the expansion of the firm's production scale.

A firm's production function could exhibit different types of returns to scale in different ranges of output. Typically, there could be increasing returns at relatively low output levels, decreasing returns at relatively high output levels, and constant returns at some range of output levels between those extremes.[1]

In mainstream microeconomics, the returns to scale faced by a firm are purely technologically imposed and are not influenced by economic decisions or by market conditions (i.e., conclusions about returns to scale are derived from the specific mathematical structure of the production function in isolation). As production scales up, companies can use more advanced and sophisticated technologies, resulting in more streamlined and specialised production within the company.

Example

[edit]

When the usages of all inputs increase by a factor of 2, new values for output will be:

  • Twice the previous output if there are constant returns to scale (CRS)
  • Less than twice the previous output if there are decreasing returns to scale (DRS)
  • More than twice the previous output if there are increasing returns to scale (IRS)

Assuming that the factor costs are constant (that is, that the firm is a perfect competitor in all input markets) and the production function is homothetic, a firm experiencing constant returns will have constant long-run average costs, a firm experiencing decreasing returns will have increasing long-run average costs, and a firm experiencing increasing returns will have decreasing long-run average costs.[2][3][4] However, this relationship breaks down if the firm does not face perfectly competitive factor markets (i.e., in this context, the price one pays for a good does depend on the amount purchased). For example, if there are increasing returns to scale in some range of output levels, but the firm is so big in one or more input markets that increasing its purchases of an input drives up the input's per-unit cost, then the firm could have diseconomies of scale in that range of output levels. Conversely, if the firm is able to get bulk discounts of an input, then it could have economies of scale in some range of output levels even if it has decreasing returns in production in that output range.

Formal definitions

[edit]

Formally, a production function is defined to have:

  • Constant returns to scale if (for any constant a greater than 0): . In this case, the function is homogeneous of degree 1.
  • Decreasing returns to scale if (for any constant a greater than 1):
  • Increasing returns to scale if (for any constant a greater than 1):

where K and L are factors of production—capital and labor, respectively.

In a more general set-up, for a multi-input-multi-output production processes, one may assume technology can be represented via some technology set, call it , which must satisfy some regularity conditions of production theory.[5][6][7][8][9] In this case, the property of constant returns to scale is equivalent to saying that technology set is a cone, i.e., satisfies the property . In turn, if there is a production function that will describe the technology set it will have to be homogeneous of degree 1.

Formal example

[edit]

If the Cobb–Douglas production function has its general form

with and then

and, for a > 1, there are increasing returns if b + c > 1, constant returns if b + c = 1, and decreasing returns if b + c < 1.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Returns to scale

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Returns to scale is a core concept in that describes the proportional change in output resulting from a uniform scaling of all inputs in a production process, typically analyzed in the long run when all are variable. Unlike short-run marginal returns, which hold some inputs fixed and focus on incremental changes, returns to scale evaluate the overall efficiency of production as the scale expands or contracts. The behavior of returns to scale is categorized into three types based on how output responds to input scaling by a factor λ>1\lambda > 1. Constant returns to scale occur when output scales exactly proportionally, so F(λz)=λF(z)F(\lambda \mathbf{z}) = \lambda F(\mathbf{z}), implying that doubling all inputs doubles output. Increasing returns to scale arise when output grows more than proportionally, as in F(λz)>λF(z)F(\lambda \mathbf{z}) > \lambda F(\mathbf{z}), often due to factors like specialization of labor or the spreading of fixed costs over larger volumes, common in capital-intensive industries such as or automobiles. Decreasing returns to scale happen when output expands less than proportionally, F(λz)<λF(z)F(\lambda \mathbf{z}) < \lambda F(\mathbf{z}), potentially from coordination challenges in very large operations or resource constraints. This framework is essential for assessing economies of scale, informing decisions on firm expansion, and explaining market dynamics like the prevalence of large firms in sectors with increasing returns. Empirically, many industries exhibit a mix, starting with increasing returns at smaller scales and transitioning to constant or decreasing as size grows, influencing productivity trends and trade patterns.

Conceptual Foundations

Intuitive Explanation

Returns to scale describe how the output from a production process responds when all inputs, such as labor and capital, are scaled up by the same proportion in the long run. This concept helps explain whether expanding production leads to proportional, greater, or lesser increases in total output compared to the expansion of inputs. A simple analogy can illustrate this: consider scaling a basic recipe for bread by doubling all ingredients like flour, water, and yeast. If the output more than doubles—yielding extra loaves due to efficiencies in mixing or baking—this represents increasing returns to scale, where output grows faster than inputs. If the yield exactly doubles, it shows constant returns to scale, with output rising in direct proportion. However, if the output less than doubles—perhaps because the larger dough becomes harder to handle evenly—this indicates decreasing returns to scale, where output expands more slowly than inputs. Such scenarios highlight the qualitative differences without delving into formal production functions. In classical economics, the idea of returns to scale traces back to observations like Adam Smith's emphasis on the division of labor, which enables greater productivity and implies increasing returns as production expands through specialization. This foundational insight underscores how proportional input increases can unlock efficiencies, setting the stage for understanding economic growth dynamics.

Historical Context

The concept of returns to scale traces its origins to classical economics, particularly in the work of , who in his seminal 1776 treatise An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations argued that the division of labor, enabled by larger markets and scale of production, leads to productivity gains and increasing returns. Smith illustrated this through the famous pin factory example, where specialization among workers dramatically boosts output per person, laying the groundwork for understanding how expanded production scales could enhance efficiency beyond proportional input increases. In the late 19th century, Alfred Marshall advanced these ideas in his 1890 Principles of Economics by distinguishing between internal economies—cost reductions arising from a firm's own expansion—and external economies, which stem from industry-wide growth and agglomeration effects. This framework linked scale effects more explicitly to firm and industry dynamics, emphasizing how internal returns could drive competitive advantages while external ones facilitated clustering in industrial districts, such as those in Victorian England. The formalization of returns to scale occurred within during the mid-20th century, with playing a pivotal role in integrating it into production theory through mathematical rigor in his 1947 Foundations of Economic Analysis. Samuelson and contemporaries like and analyzed returns via homogeneous production functions, classifying them as increasing, constant, or decreasing based on output responses to proportional input scaling, which became central to microeconomic models of firm behavior and cost structures. This neoclassical foundation influenced macroeconomic growth models, notably Robert Solow's 1956 paper "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," which assumed constant returns to scale in aggregate production to derive steady-state capital accumulation paths driven by exogenous technological progress. Post-1950s developments shifted toward recognizing increasing returns in endogenous growth theory, as Paul Romer demonstrated in his 1986 article "Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth," where knowledge spillovers generate non-diminishing returns, enabling sustained growth without relying solely on external factors. Romer's work in the 1980s and 1990s revitalized the concept, highlighting how scale effects from innovation could explain persistent economic expansion in knowledge-based economies.

Types of Returns to Scale

Increasing Returns to Scale

Increasing returns to scale occur when a proportional increase in all inputs leads to a greater than proportional increase in output. For instance, if all inputs are doubled, output more than doubles. This property contrasts with constant returns, where output scales exactly proportionally, and is a key feature in production technologies exhibiting efficiencies that amplify as scale expands. Several factors contribute to increasing returns to scale. Indivisibilities in production, such as fixed costs or lumpy inputs like machinery that cannot be scaled down without waste, create initial inefficiencies that diminish as output grows, allowing average costs to fall. Specialization of labor, as emphasized by Adam Smith, enables workers to focus on narrower tasks, boosting productivity through the division of labor and reducing time lost to switching activities. Finally, learning-by-doing generates cumulative knowledge gains from repeated production, improving efficiency over time without additional inputs, as modeled by Kenneth Arrow. The implications of increasing returns to scale are profound for market structure. They promote market concentration, as larger firms achieve lower average costs, outcompeting smaller rivals and potentially leading to oligopolies or dominance by a few players. This dynamic often results in natural monopolies, particularly in industries like utilities, where high fixed costs and indivisibilities make it inefficient for multiple firms to operate, favoring a single efficient provider. Moreover, increasing returns introduce non-convex production sets, where the feasible output combinations form non-smooth boundaries, complicating equilibrium analysis and invalidating standard convexity assumptions in economic models. Theoretically, increasing returns to scale play a central role in explaining spatial and dynamic economic patterns. In urban economics, they drive agglomeration, as firms and workers cluster in core regions to exploit scale advantages, leading to self-sustaining core-periphery patterns influenced by transport costs and manufacturing shares, as analyzed by Paul Krugman. In growth theory, they underpin innovation-driven growth by treating knowledge as a non-rival input that generates increasing marginal productivity, enabling sustained long-run expansion without diminishing returns, as in Paul Romer's endogenous growth models.

Constant Returns to Scale

Constant returns to scale (CRS) describe a production scenario in which an increase in all inputs by a given proportion results in an exactly proportional increase in output, such that efficiency remains unchanged regardless of the scale of operation. For instance, if all factors of production, such as labor and capital, are doubled, output will also exactly double, reflecting a linearly homogeneous production function. This property assumes no inherent limitations from scarce non-augmentable resources, allowing for smooth scalability in economic modeling. CRS typically arises from linear technologies, where the production process exhibits homogeneity of degree one, and from the perfect divisibility of inputs, which eliminates indivisibilities or setup costs that could alter proportionality. In the absence of fixed costs, variable inputs can be scaled continuously without efficiency gains or losses, supporting scenarios where production units operate identically at any size. These conditions ensure that the technology itself does not introduce nonlinearities, maintaining balanced input-output relationships. The implications of CRS are profound for economic theory, particularly in fostering perfect competition, where firms face constant average costs, leading to zero economic profits in the long run as entry and exit equalize returns. Under CRS, Euler's theorem applies, stating that the sum of payments to factors equals total output, allowing factors to be remunerated at their marginal products and fully exhausting revenue without residual profits. This also enables firm replicability, as production units can be duplicated indefinitely without diminishing efficiency, reinforcing competitive market structures. In neoclassical economic models, CRS serves as a core assumption, notably in the Solow growth model, where it facilitates predictions of long-run balanced growth paths and steady-state equilibria independent of initial conditions. By ensuring constant returns in capital and labor, the model derives stable capital-labor ratios and per capita output convergence, underpinning analyses of savings rates and technological progress without instability. This foundational role highlights CRS's utility in simulating sustainable economic expansion under exogenous labor growth.

Decreasing Returns to Scale

Decreasing returns to scale occur when all inputs to a production process are increased by a uniform proportion, resulting in an output increase that is smaller than that same proportion. For instance, if all inputs are doubled, output might rise by only 1.5 times or less. This phenomenon arises primarily from organizational and managerial challenges in large-scale operations. Management complexities, such as bureaucratic insularity where senior executives become detached from operational realities and prioritize personal interests, contribute to inefficiencies as firm size grows. Coordination failures, including communication distortions across hierarchical layers and bounded rationality limiting information processing, further exacerbate these issues by hindering effective decision-making. Additionally, diminishing marginal returns at large scales emerge due to difficulties in replicating high-powered market incentives within internal hierarchies, leading to reduced employee motivation and productivity. The implications of decreasing returns to scale include incentives for firms to pursue diversification strategies, as expanding within a single line of business yields diminishing productivity gains, making entry into related industries more attractive to sustain growth. This dynamic limits the potential for monopoly power by increasing average costs for oversized firms, thereby preventing indefinite expansion and fostering conditions for competitive markets with multiple viable participants. In theoretical models, decreasing returns to scale explain why firms do not grow infinitely, as organizational costs eventually outweigh benefits.

Mathematical Formulation

Production Function Definition

In economics, the production function represents the technological relationship between inputs and output, specifying the maximum amount of output that can be produced from given quantities of inputs. For a firm using labor LL and capital KK as primary inputs, the production function is typically expressed as Q=f(L,K)Q = f(L, K), where QQ denotes the quantity of output. This function assumes that inputs are used efficiently to achieve the highest possible production level under prevailing technology. Returns to scale are evaluated by examining how output responds when all inputs are scaled by a positive factor t>1t > 1. Specifically, if the inputs are increased proportionally to tLtL and tKtK, the resulting output f(tL,tK)f(tL, tK) is compared to t⋅f(L,K)t \cdot f(L, K). If f(tL,tK)>t⋅f(L,K)f(tL, tK) > t \cdot f(L, K), the exhibits increasing returns to scale; if equal, constant returns to scale; and if less, decreasing returns to scale. This scaling property captures the overall efficiency gains or losses from expanding production proportionally. A more formal approach defines returns to scale through the degree of homogeneity of the . A function f(L,K)f(L, K) is homogeneous of degree rr if f(tL,tK)=t[r](/page/R)f(L,K)f(tL, tK) = t^[r](/page/R) f(L, K) for all t>0t > 0. In this context, r>1r > 1 indicates increasing returns to scale, r=1r = 1 constant returns to scale (linear homogeneity), and 0<r<10 < r < 1 decreasing returns to scale. The value of rr thus quantifies the responsiveness of output to uniform input expansion. For analytical purposes, production functions in returns to scale studies are commonly assumed to be continuous and twice differentiable, ensuring smooth marginal rates of substitution and enabling the application of calculus-based techniques to derive properties like marginal products.

Homogeneity and Scaling Properties

In production theory, a production function f(x)f(\mathbf{x}) is homogeneous of degree γ\gamma if scaling all inputs by a positive factor tt scales output by tγt^\gamma, formally f(tx)=tγf(x)f(t\mathbf{x}) = t^\gamma f(\mathbf{x}) for all x≥0\mathbf{x} \geq \mathbf{0} and t>0t > 0. This property captures : γ>1\gamma > 1 indicates increasing returns, γ=1\gamma = 1 constant returns, and 0<γ<10 < \gamma < 1 decreasing returns. A key feature is that partial derivatives of homogeneous functions are themselves homogeneous of degree γ−1\gamma - 1; specifically, the partial derivative with respect to input xix_i satisfies ∂f∂xi(tx)=tγ−1∂f∂xi(x)\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}(t\mathbf{x}) = t^{\gamma - 1} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}(\mathbf{x}). This scaling ensures that marginal products adjust proportionally with input expansion, providing a foundation for analyzing input responsiveness in scaled production scenarios. Euler's theorem extends this by relating the function's value to its partial derivatives. For a continuously differentiable homogeneous function of degree γ\gamma, the theorem states ∑ixi∂f∂xi(x)=γf(x)\sum_i x_i \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}(\mathbf{x}) = \gamma f(\mathbf{x}). In the context of constant returns to scale (γ=1\gamma = 1), this simplifies to ∑ixi∂f∂xi(x)=f(x)\sum_i x_i \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}(\mathbf{x}) = f(\mathbf{x}), implying that total factor payments—wages times labor and rents times capital—exactly exhaust total output, assuming competitive factor markets. This result, originally applied to production by Wicksteed (1894) and Flux (1894), underscores the efficiency of resource allocation under constant returns. Production functions are not always strictly homogeneous, particularly when returns to scale vary across input levels. In such non-homogeneous cases, quasi-homogeneity offers a generalization: a function f(x1,…,xn)f(x_1, \dots, x_n) is quasi-homogeneous of degree qq with weights g=(g1,…,gn)\mathbf{g} = (g_1, \dots, g_n) if f(tg1x1,…,tgnxn)=tqf(x1,…,xn)f(t^{g_1} x_1, \dots, t^{g_n} x_n) = t^q f(x_1, \dots, x_n) for t>0t > 0. This allows the effective degree of homogeneity—and thus returns to scale—to differ depending on the input range or weighting, accommodating real-world scenarios where scaling behaves differently at low versus high production levels, such as initial fixed costs or saturation effects. Homogeneity also connects to cost structures. Under constant returns to scale (γ=1\gamma = 1), average costs remain constant as output expands, since proportional input increases yield proportional output without efficiency losses or gains. This follows from the production function's scaling property, ensuring that the minimum per unit of output is invariant to scale.

Examples and Illustrations

Numerical Example

To illustrate the concepts of increasing, constant, and decreasing returns to scale, consider a hypothetical firm that produces output QQ using two inputs: labor LL and capital KK. Suppose the initial input levels are L=10L = 10 and K=10K = 10, yielding an output of Q=20Q = 20. For increasing returns to scale, doubling the inputs to L=20L = 20 and K=20K = 20 results in an output of Q=50Q = 50, which is more than double the original output (i.e., greater than 40). This demonstrates that output increases by a larger proportion than the inputs. For constant returns to scale, the same doubling of inputs yields Q=40Q = 40, exactly double the original output. Here, output scales proportionally with the inputs. For decreasing returns to scale, doubling the inputs results in Q=30Q = 30, which is less than double the original (i.e., less than 40). Output increases by a smaller proportion than the inputs. To further demonstrate the patterns across multiple scale factors, the following tables show output levels for input scales of 1× (base), 2×, and 3× the initial levels, for each type of returns to scale. These hypothetical values highlight how output ratios evolve with proportional input changes.

Increasing Returns to Scale

Scale FactorLabor (L)Capital (K)Output (Q)Output Ratio (vs. Base)
1×1010201.00
2×2020502.50
3×3030904.50

Constant Returns to Scale

Scale FactorLabor (L)Capital (K)Output (Q)Output Ratio (vs. Base)
1×1010201.00
2×2020402.00
3×3030603.00

Decreasing Returns to Scale

Scale FactorLabor (L)Capital (K)Output (Q)Output Ratio (vs. Base)
1×1010201.00
2×2020301.50
3×3030361.80

Cobb-Douglas Function Application

The Cobb-Douglas production function provides a parametric framework for analyzing returns to scale, expressed as Q=ALαKβQ = A L^{\alpha} K^{\beta}, where QQ denotes output, LL is labor input, KK is capital input, A>0A > 0 represents total factor productivity capturing technological efficiency, and α>0\alpha > 0, β>0\beta > 0 are the output elasticities with respect to labor and capital, respectively. The sum α+β\alpha + \beta determines the nature of returns to scale: increasing if α+β>1\alpha + \beta > 1, constant if α+β=1\alpha + \beta = 1, and decreasing if α+β<1\alpha + \beta < 1. This functional form is homogeneous of degree α+β\alpha + \beta, allowing direct assessment of scaling properties. To derive the returns to scale, scale both inputs proportionally by a factor t>0t > 0: f(tL,tK)=A(tL)α(tK)β=AtαLαtβKβ=tα+βALαKβ=tα+βQ.f(tL, tK) = A (tL)^{\alpha} (tK)^{\beta} = A t^{\alpha} L^{\alpha} t^{\beta} K^{\beta} = t^{\alpha + \beta} A L^{\alpha} K^{\beta} = t^{\alpha + \beta} Q. Thus, output scales by tα+βt^{\alpha + \beta}, confirming the degree of homogeneity as α+β\alpha + \beta and the corresponding returns to scale. This derivation highlights the function's suitability for testing scaling behavior in empirical models. In the seminal empirical application, Cobb and Douglas estimated the function using U.S. manufacturing data from 1899 to 1922, obtaining α≈0.75\alpha \approx 0.75 for labor and β≈0.25\beta \approx 0.25 for capital, yielding α+β=1\alpha + \beta = 1 and implying constant returns to scale. For increasing returns, subsequent studies in specific sectors, such as Italian manufacturing firms, have reported estimates like α≈1.197\alpha \approx 1.197 (labor) and β≈0.130\beta \approx 0.130 (capital), resulting in α+β≈1.327>1\alpha + \beta \approx 1.327 > 1. These parameter values illustrate how deviations from unity in the sum signal non-constant scaling, with higher sums indicating potential economies from expansion. Empirically, α\alpha and β\beta are estimated via log-linear regression on panel or time-series : ln⁡Qit=ln⁡A+αln⁡Lit+βln⁡Kit+ϵit\ln Q_{it} = \ln A + \alpha \ln L_{it} + \beta \ln K_{it} + \epsilon_{it}, where returns to scale are tested using a Wald or t-test on the α+β=1\alpha + \beta = 1. In studies, under assumptions of competitive factor markets and constant returns, α\alpha approximates the observed labor compensation share of output (typically 0.6–0.7), providing an indirect check on the sum; deviations prompt tests for variable returns. Such estimations, often incorporating instrumental variables to address endogeneity, have been central to debates on aggregate production dynamics.

Economic Implications

At the firm level, increasing returns to scale encourage expansion and mergers, as larger operations allow firms to spread fixed costs and achieve lower average costs, making bigger entities more competitive and attractive for acquisition. This dynamic favors consolidation, where synergies from scale enhance profitability and deter entry by smaller rivals, as seen in industries like banking and where large firms exhibit higher than averages. Conversely, decreasing returns to scale constrain firm growth by raising average costs as size increases, often limiting optimal scale in sectors like where smallholder operations predominate due to land-intensive production and diminishing marginal efficiencies. In market structures, constant returns to scale underpin by enabling indefinite replication of firms without cost advantages, ensuring zero long-run economic profits and efficient across numerous small producers. Increasing returns, however, promote concentration and monopolistic structures, as cost advantages accrue to dominant players, potentially leading to natural monopolies or oligopolies that raise antitrust concerns over reduced competition and higher prices. This shift necessitates regulatory interventions to prevent abuses, balancing incentives against welfare losses. On the macroeconomic front, increasing returns to scale drive sustained economic growth through innovation spillovers, where knowledge accumulation expands production possibilities economy-wide, as non-rival ideas amplify labor and capital productivity beyond private returns. In endogenous growth models, these scale effects generate positive externalities, fostering cumulative technological progress and higher per capita output, though they amplify income disparities if spillovers favor advanced economies. Policy implications span : under constant returns to scale, thrives via specialization, promoting efficient global exchange without size-based distortions, as in Ricardian models where factor endowments dictate patterns. For development, addressing decreasing returns in —prevalent due to fixed land constraints—requires policies enhancing input access and market reforms to boost smallholder productivity, supporting in low-income regions. Such interventions mitigate inefficiencies from scale limitations, aligning agricultural output with broader economic expansion.

Distinction from Economies of Scale

Returns to scale refer to the long-run technological relationship between proportional changes in all inputs and the resulting change in output, focusing purely on production efficiency without considering costs. In contrast, economies of scale describe cost advantages achieved when expanding output, often through spreading fixed costs or operational efficiencies that lower average costs per unit. While increasing returns to scale—where output rises more than proportionally to inputs—typically lead to economies of scale by enhancing productivity, the two concepts are not equivalent, as returns to scale ignore pricing and cost structures. For instance, economies of scale can arise even under constant returns to scale if fixed costs are spread over larger output volumes or through specialization that improves efficiency without altering the input-output proportionality. Conversely, decreasing returns to scale may coexist with diseconomies of scale, such as rising average costs due to managerial bureaucracy or coordination challenges in very large organizations. This distinction highlights a common confusion: returns to scale are a property of the , while encompass broader firm-level or industry-level dynamics, including non-technological factors like or . Although overlaps exist—such as technical economies driving both—in cases without significant fixed s, increasing returns may not translate to cost savings.

References

  1. http://www.econ.ucla.edu/riley/ESSMICRO/R5/R5-4.pdf
  2. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/033015/whats-difference-between-diminishing-marginal-returns-and-returns-scale.asp
  3. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Economics/International_Economics/International_Trade_-_Theory_and_Policy/06%3A_Economies_of_Scale_and_International_Trade/6.2%3A_Economies_of_Scale_and_Returns_to_Scale
  4. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/71501/1/478462123.pdf
  5. https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=econ_faculty
  6. https://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN1.html
  7. https://www.econlib.org/library/Marshall/marP27.html
  8. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674313033
  9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40436150
  10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1905689
  11. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261420
  12. https://courses.ems.psu.edu/ebf200/node/243
  13. https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~rstarr/EdwardsStarr.pdf
  14. https://www.haverford.edu/sites/default/files/Arrow1962.pdf
  15. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/1997-98/microsoft-vs-doj/economics/returns.html
  16. http://www.econ.ucla.edu/riley/MAE/Course/Firms.pdf
  17. http://dido.econ.yale.edu/~djb/pub/equi-anal.pdf
  18. https://pr.princeton.edu/pictures/g-k/krugman/krugman-increasing_returns_1991.pdf
  19. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sociology/watts/g9058/client_edit/romer.pdf
  20. https://pages.nyu.edu/debraj/Courses/Readings/Solow.pdf
  21. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Economic%20Growth%20Lectures%202%20and%203%202020.pdf
  22. https://www.joelkariel.com/publication/returns_to_scale/returns_to_scale.pdf
  23. http://home.uchicago.edu/~vlima/courses/econ201/pricetext/ProfMax.pdf
  24. https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s2_8764.pdf
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176522003834
  26. https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/io/papers/9810/9810001.pdf
  27. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=354400
  28. https://faculty.sites.iastate.edu/ahallam/files/inline-files/ProductionFunctions.pdf
  29. https://faculty.fiu.edu/~boydj/mathecon/math20.pdf
  30. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~mcfadden/prodecon/apps/ch11.pdf
  31. https://faculty.fiu.edu/~boydj/microii/microp01-l.pdf
  32. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/11/8/976
  33. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/antras/files/cespublished.pdf
  34. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/116351/1/MPRA_paper_116351.pdf
  35. https://www.levyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/wp_803.pdf
  36. https://itif.org/publications/2024/05/06/why-us-economy-needs-more-consolidation-not-less/
  37. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26331
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022199679900891
  39. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Lectures%209%20and%2010%20-%20Endogenous%20Technological%20Change_0.pdf
  40. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/t0336/t0336.pdf
  41. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/comparative-advantage/
  42. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/741921468157179935/pdf/DRD2030Box37770rvey0of0the0evidence.pdf
  43. https://economics.yale.edu/research/are-there-too-many-farms-world-new-research-agricultural-productivity-developing-countries
  44. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Economics/International_Economics/International_Trade_-_Theory_and_Policy/06%253A_Economies_of_Scale_and_International_Trade/6.2%253A_Economies_of_Scale_and_Returns_to_Scale
  45. https://aei.pitt.edu/85784/1/V.4.V.pdf
  46. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/econ-facpubs/54/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.