|Figure 1: The Choice of Technique in a Model with Four Techniques|
I think I may have an original criticism of (a good part of) neoclassical economics. For purposes of this post, I here define the use of continuously differential production functions as an essential element in the neoclassical theory of production. (This is a more restrictive characterization than I usually employ.) Consider this two-sector example, in which coefficients of production in both sectors varies continuously along the wage-rate of profits frontier. It would follow from this post, I guess, that neoclassical theory is a limit, in some sense, of an analysis in which all switch points are flukes.
I have presented many other, often unoriginal, examples with a continuum of techniques:
- Labor reversing without capital
- Recurrence of capital-output ratio without reswitching
- An example with heterogeneous labor
- Labor demand in a fog
- Slope of 'demand curve' varying with numeraire
- Negative price Wicksell effect, positive real Wicksell effect
I have an example with an uncountably infinite number of techniques along the wage-rate of frontier, but discontinuities for (all?) marginal relationships.2.0 Technology
I want to compare and contrast two models. The technology in the second model is an example in Salvadori and Steedman (1988).
Households consume a single commodity, called "corn", in both models. In both models, two processes are known for producing corn. And these processes require inputs of labor and a capital good to produce corn. All processes exhibit Constant Returns to Scale, and all processes require services of inputs over a year to produce output of a single commodity available at the end of the year. Both models are models of circulating capital. Nothing remains at the end of the year of the capital goods whose services are used by firms during the production processes.2.1 First Model
The technology for the first model is shown in Table 1. Each column lists the inputs, in physical units, needed to produce one physical unit of the output for the industry for that column. The two processes for producing corn require inputs of distinct capital goods. One corn-producing process requires inputs of labor and iron, and the other requires inputs of labor and tin.
Two techniques, as shown in Table 2, are available for producing a net output of corn. A choice of a process for producing corn also entails a choice of which capital good is produced. When the processes are each operated on a appropriate scale, the gross output of the process producing the specific capital good exactly replaces the quantity of the capital good used up as an input, summed over both industries operated in the technique.
2.2 Second Model
The technology for the second model is shown in Table 3. Two processes are known for producing corn. Both corn-producing processes require inputs of labor and iron, but in different proportions.
Table 4 lists the techniques available in the second model. The first two techniques superficially resemble the two techniques available in the first model. But, in this model, the first process for producing a capital good can be combined, in a technique, with the second corn-producing producing process. This combination of processes is called the Gamma technique. Likewise, the Delta technique combines the second process for producing a capital good with the first corn-producing processes. Nothing like the Gamma and Delta techniques are available in the first model.
3.0 Prices of Production
Suppose the Alpha technique is cost-minimizing. Prices of production, which permit smooth reproduction of the economy, must satisfy the following system of two equations in three unknowns:
(2/3)(1 + r) + wα = pα
(2/3) pα(1 + r) + wα = 1
These equations are based on the assumption that labor is advanced, and wages are paid out of the surplus at the end of the year. The same rate of profits are generated in both industries. A unit quantity of corn is taken as the numeraire.
One of the variables in these equations can be taken as exogenous. The first row in Table 5 specifies the wage and the price of the appropriate capital good, as a function of the rate of profits. The equation in the second column is called the wage-rate of profits curve, also known as the wage curve, for the Alpha technique. Table 5 also shows solutions of the systems of equations for the prices of production for the other three techniques in the second model, above. I have deliberately chosen a notation such that the first two rows can be read as applying to either one of the two models.
|Alpha||wα = (1 - 2 r)/3||pα = 1|
|Beta||wβ = (1 - r)/4||pβ = 1|
|Gamma||wγ = 2(2 - 2r - r2)|
/[3(5 + r)]
|pγ = 2(7 + 4r)|
/[3(5 + r)]
|Delta||wδ = (2 - 2r - r2)/(7 + 4r)||pδ = 3(5 + r)/[2(7 + 4r)]|
Figure 1, at the top of this post, graphs all four wage-curves. The wage curves for the Alpha and Beta techniques are straight lines. In the jargon, the processes comprising these techniques exhibit the same organic composition of capital. The wage curves for the Gamma and Delta techniques are not straight lines. All four wage-curves intersect at a single point, (r, w) = (20%, 1/5). (The wage curves for the Gamma and Delta techniques have the same intersection with the axis for the rate of profits.)3.0 Choice of Technique
The cost-minimizing techniques form the outer envelope of the wage curves. For a given wage, the cost minimizing technique is the technique with the highest wage curve in Figure 1. A switch point is a point on the outer envelope at which more than one technique is cost-minimizing. All four wage curves intersect, in the figure, at the single switch point.
The Beta technique is cost-minimizing for wages to the left of the single switch point. The Alpha technique is cost-minimizing for all feasible wages greater than the wage at the switch point. Managers of firms replace both processes in the Alpha technique at the switch point with both processes in the Beta technique.
This is no problem for the first model above. The adoption of a new process for producing corn requires, if the economy is capable of self-replacement before and after the switch, that the process for producing iron or tin be replaced by the process for producing the other.
But consider the other model. For all processes in the Alpha technique to be replaced at a switch point, the wage curves for all techniques composed of all combinations of processes in the Alpha and Beta techniques. In other words, in the second model, wage curves for all four techniques must intersect at the switch point. The example in the second model is a fluke.
I have previously explained what makes a result a fluke, in the context of the analysis of the choice of technique. Qualitative properties, for generic results, continue to persist for some small variation in model parameters.
Consider a model with a discrete number of switch points. Consider the cost-minimizing techniques on both sides of a switch point. And suppose that same commodities are produced in both techniques, albeit in different proportions. Generically, only one process is replaced at such a switch point. All processes, except for that one, are common in both techniques.5.0 A Generalization to An Uncountably Infinite Number of Processes in Each Industry
Consider a model with more than one industry, but a finite number. Suppose each industry has available an uncountably infinite number of processes. And, in each industry, the processes available for that industry can be described by a continuously differentiable production function. Here I present a two-commodity example with Cobb-Douglas production functions.
There are no switch points in such a model. The cost-minimizing technique varies continuously along the outer-envelope of wage curves. In fact, the processes in each industry, in the cost-minimizing technique varies continuously. Since there are no switch points at all, there is not a single switch point in which more than one process varies, as a fluke, with the cost-minimizing technique.
Nevertheless, cannot one see such "smooth" production functions as a limiting case? If so, it would be a generalization or extension of a discrete model, in which all switch points are flukes, to a continuum. From the perspective of the analysis of the choice of technique in discrete models, typical neoclassical models are nothing but flukes.6.0 Conclusions
I actually found my negative conclusion surprising. I have tried to be conscious of the distinction between the structure of the two models in Section 2 above. I think at least some examples I have presented cannot be attacked by the above critique. They are examples of the first, not the second model. I tend to read Samuelson (1962) in the same way, as not sensitive to the critique in this post.References
- Neri Salvadori and Ian Steedman (1988). No reswitching? No switching! Cambridge Journal of Economics, V. 12: pp. 481-486.
- Samuelson, P. A. (1962). Parable and Realism in Capital Theory: The Surrogate Production Function, V. 29, No. 3: pp. 193-206.
- J. E. Woods 1990. The Production of Commodities: An Introduction to Sraffa, Humanities Press International.