Printer Friendly

Variable returns to scale, urban unemployment and welfare: reply.

I.

We wish to thank Professor Yabuuchi [2] for his comment regarding Beladi's [1] treatment of [g.sub.i] ([X.sub.i]) as exogenous. The term [g.sub.i] (X.sub.i]) captures interindustry scale economies, as can be seen by forming the elasticity of [g.sub.i] ([X.sub.i]) with respect to changes in industry output, [X.sub.i]: (1) [[Epsilon].sub.i] = ([dg.sub.i] / [dX.sub.i]) ([X.sub.i] / [g.sub.i]). [[Epsilon].sub.i] is defined on [- [infinity]], with [[Epsilon].sub.i] > 0 denoting increasing returns to scale (IRS), [[Epsilon].sub.i] = 0 denoting constant returns to scale (CRS) and [[Epsilon].sub.i] < 0 denoting decreasing returns to scale (DRS). Not taking the derivative of [g.sub.i] ([X.sub.i]) with respect to [X.sub.i] is equivalent to treating the industry as being characterized by CRS, as Yabuuchi notes.

In his comment, Yabuuchi derives two propositions concerning the relative merits of free trade versus a small wage subsidy in agriculture or manufacturing. These propositions are based on two assumptions. The first, that ~[Lambda]~ > 0, is an extension of Neary's stability condition; it is standard in the literature. The second, that [Mathematical Expression Omitted] = capital or L = labor; i [Mathematical Expression Omitted] a = agriculture as m = manufacturing), is the focus of this reply.

The assumption that [[Lambda].sub.ji] > 0 imposes limits on the degree of scale economies relative to the elasticity of substitution in agriculture [[Sigma].sub.a]), where [Sigma].sub.a] is convoluted by additional terms shown below. The terms [[Lambda].sub.ji] may be written as:(1) (2) [[Lambda].sub.Ka] = [[Lambda].sub.Ka] [1 - [[Epsilon].sub.a] + [[Sigma].sub.a + [[Sigma].sub.a] [[Epsilon].sub.a]] (3) [[Lambda].sub.La] = [[Lambda].sub.La] [1 - [[Epsilon].sub.a] [Phi]] (4) [[Lambda].sub.Km] = [[Lambda].sub.Km] [1 - [[Epsilon].sub.m] + [[Epsilon].sub.m] [[Psi].sub.K]] (5) [[Lambda].sub.Lm] = (+ [Lambda]) [[Lambda].sub.Lm] [1 - [[Epsilon].sub.m] + [[Epsilon].sub.m] [[Psi].sub.L]] where, [Mathematical Expression Omitted] it is apparent from (2) that [[Lambda].sub.Ka] > 0 iff: (6) [Mathematical Expression Omitted] which holds if [[Epsilon].sub.a] [is greater than or equal to] 0 or if [Sigma].sub.a] [is less than or equal to] 1 while 0 > [[Epsilon].sub.a]. Further, (7) [Mathematical Expression Omitted] Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of [[Lambda].sub.Ka]. It is obvious that [[Lambda].sub.Ka] [is less than or equal to] 0 for all [[Epsilon].sub.a < 1/(1 - [[Sigma].sub.a]).

It is also apparent from (3) that [[Lambda].sub.La] > 0 if [[Epsilon].sub.La] > 0 if [[Epsilon].sub.a] < (1/[Phi]) which clearly holds if [Phi] < 1. Since (d [[Lambda].sub.La]/d [[Epsilon].sub.a]) = -[Phi] < 0, we can drew Figure 2, showing that [[Lambda].sub.La] < 0 for [[Epsilon].sub.La] < 0 for all [[Epsilon].sub.a] > (/[Pi]) provided [Phi] > 1.

Thus far we have shown that [[Lambda].sub.La], [[Lambda].sub.Ka] > 0 is assured for: (8) [Mathematical Expression Omitted] with the larger inequality potential violated if [Phi] > 1 and the smaller inequality potentially violated if [[Sigma].sub.a] [is less than or equal to] 1.

Turning to [[Lambda].sub.jm] we se from (4) that [[Lambda].sub.Km] > 0 iff: (9) [Mathematical Expression Omitted] while from (5) [[Lambda].sub.Lm] > 0 iff: (10) [Mathematical Expression Omitted] Both relationships hold if [[Epsilon].sub.m] [is greater than or equal to] 0 or if [[Psi].sub.i] [is less than or equal to] 1 while 0 > [[Epsilon].sub.m]. Figures 3 and 4 graph [[Lambda].sub.Km] and [[Lambda].sub.Lm] respectively.

Thus, [[Lambda].sub.Lm], [[Lambda].sub.Km] > 0 is assured provided: (11) [Mathematical Expression Omitted] for [[Epsilon].subm] < 0, [[Psi].sub.i] > 1.

II. Summary

There have been two purposes of this reply. The first is to acknowledge that Yabuuchi correctly demands that analysis of variable returns to scale requires taking the derivative of [g.sub.i] (X.sub.i). The second had been to point out that his propositions 1 and 2 are based on somewhat more restrictive assumption concerning the magnitudes of [[Epsilon].sub.m] and [[Epsilon].sub.a] than is apparent at first reading. This is not a weakness of his model. Rather, it is a fact that the existence of variable returns to scale (VRS) precludes obtaining results as clean as those which occur with constant returns to scale. In a future paper we intend to provide a rigorous analysis of resource allocation across sectors under VRS in the context of the Harris-Todaro model of sector specific unemployment. Hamid Beladi University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio Charles A. Ingene University of Washington Seattle, Washington (1)Equations (2)-(5) correspond to the unnumbered definitions between equations (27) and (28) in Yabuuchi [2]. Our (4) and (5) differ slightly fron [[Lambda].sub.Km] and [[Lambda].sub.Lm in Yabuuchi, apparently due to typographical errors in the manuscript of the comment. However, even using Yabuuchi's definitions of these terms would yield similar results to those show below.

References

[1]Beladi, Hamid, "Variable Returns to Scale, Urban Unemployment and Welfare. Southern Economic Journal October 1988, 412,23. [2]Yabuuchi, Shigemi, "Variable Returns to Scale, Urban Unemployment and Welfare: Comment." Southern Economic Journal, April 1992.
COPYRIGHT 1992 Southern Economic Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1992, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:response to Shigemi Yabuuchi, Southern Economic Journal, vol. 58, p. 1103, April 1992
Author:Ingene, Charles A.
Publication:Southern Economic Journal
Date:Apr 1, 1992
Words:880
Previous Article:Variable returns to scale, urban unemployment and welfare: comment.
Next Article:Estimating a non-minimum cost function for hospitals: comment.
Topics:


Related Articles
Variable returns to scale, urban unemployment and welfare: comment.
Effects of quotas under variable returns to scale: the large country case.
Trade policies and welfare in a Harris-Todaro economy.
Income non-convergence and rural-urban earnings differentials: evidence from North Carolina.
Children as income-producing assets: the case of teen illegitimacy and government transfers.
Imperfect labor mobility and unemployment in LDCs: comment.
Imperfect labor mobility and unemployment in LDCs: reply.
Rural-urban wage differentials, unemployment, and efficiency wages: an open economy policy analysis.
A time series analysis of the effect of welfare benefits on earnings.
A comprehensive analysis of sex and race inequities in unemployment insurance benefits.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters