• Views 3,047
• Citations 5
• ePub 22
• PDF 413
`Mathematical Problems in EngineeringVolume 2013 (2013), Article ID 732643, 5 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/732643`
Research Article

On Homogeneous Production Functions with Proportional Marginal Rate of Substitution

1Department of Information Technology, Mathematics and Physics, Petroleum-Gas University of Ploieşti, Bulevardul Bucureşti No. 39, 100680 Ploieşti, Romania
2Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Research Center in Geometry, Topology and Algebra, University of Bucharest, Street Academiei No. 14, Sector 1, 70109 Bucharest, Romania
3Department of Mathematical Modelling, Economic Analysis and Statistics, Petroleum-Gas University of Ploieşti, Bulevardul Bucureşti No. 39, 100680 Ploieşti, Romania

Received 11 December 2012; Accepted 10 February 2013

Copyright © 2013 Alina Daniela Vîlcu and Gabriel Eduard Vîlcu. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

We completely classify homogeneous production functions with proportional marginal rate of substitution and with constant elasticity of labor and capital, respectively. These classifications generalize some recent results of C. A. Ioan and G. Ioan (2011) concerning the sum production function.

1. Introduction

It is easy to see that this production function is homogeneous of degree 1 and integrates in an unitary expression various production functions, including CD, CES, and VES. In [13], C. A. Ioan and G. Ioan compute the principal indicators of the sum production function and prove three theorems of characterization for the functions with a proportional marginal rate of substitution, with constant elasticity of labor and for those with constant elasticity of substitution, as follows.

Theorem 1 (see [13]). The sum production function has a proportional marginal rate of substitution if and only if it reduces to the Cobb-Douglas function.

Theorem 2 (see [13]). The sum production function has a constant elasticity of labor if and only if it reduces to the Cobb-Douglas function.

Theorem 3 (see [13]). If , then the sum production function has constant elasticity of substitution if and only if it reduces to the Cobb-Douglas or CES function.

We recall that, for a production function with two factors (-capital and -labor), the marginal rate of substitution (between capital and labor) is given by where the elasticities of and are defined as while the elasticity of substitution is given by

It is easy to verify that, in the case of constant return to scale, Euler’s theorem implies the following more simple expression for the elasticity of substitution:

We note that it was proved by Losonczi [14] that twice differentiable two-input homogeneous production functions with constant elasticity of substitution (CES) property are Cobb-Douglas and ACMS production functions, which is obviously a more general result than Theorem 3. This result was recently generalized by Chen for an arbitrary number of inputs [15]. In the next section, we prove the following result which is a generalization of Theorems 1 and 2.

Theorem 4. Let be a twice differentiable, homogeneous of degree , nonconstant, real valued production function with two inputs (-capital and -labor). Then, one has the following.(i) has a constant elasticity of labor if and only if it is a Cobb-Douglas production function given by where is a positive constant. (ii) has a constant elasticity of capital if and only if it is a Cobb-Douglas production function given by where is a positive constant. (iii) satisfies the proportional rate of substitution property between capital and labor (i.e., , where is a positive constant) if and only if it is a Cobb-Douglas production function given by where is a positive constant.

In the last section of the paper, we generalize the above theorem for an arbitrary number of inputs . We note that other classification results concerning production functions were proved recently in [1620].

2. Proof of Theorem 4

Proof. Consider the following.(i) We first suppose that has a constant elasticity of labor . Then, we have But with being homogeneous of degree , it follows that it can be written in the form or where (with ), respectively, (with ), and is a real valued function of , of class on its domain of definition. We can suppose, without loss of generality, that the first situation occurs, so , with . Then, we have From (10) and (13), we obtain and therefore we deduce that the constant elasticity of labor property implies the following differential equation: Solving the above separable differential equation, we obtain where is a positive constant. Finally, from (11) and (16), we derive that is a Cobb-Douglas production function given by The converse is easy to verify. (ii) The proof follows similarly as in (i). (iii) Since the production function satisfies the proportional rate of substitution property, it follows that On the other hand, from Euler’s homogeneous function theorem, we have Combining now (18) and (19), we obtain From (20), we deduce that where is a real constant. But with being a homogeneous function of degree , it follows from (21) that Therefore, from (21) and (22), we derive that where is a real constant. Finally, since is a nonconstant production function, it follows that , and therefore we deduce that is in fact a positive constant. So, is a Cobb-Douglas production function.The converse is easy to check, and the proof is now complete.

3. Generalization to an Arbitrary Number of Inputs

Let be a homogeneous production function with inputs , . Then, the elasticity of production with respect to a certain factor of production is defined as while the marginal rate of technical substitution of input for input is given by

A production function is said to satisfy the proportional marginal rate of substitution property if and only if , for all . Now, we are able to prove the following result, which generalizes Theorem 4 for an arbitrary number of inputs.

Theorem 5. Let be a twice differentiable, homogeneous of degree , nonconstant, real valued function of variables defined on , where . Then, one has the following.(i) The elasticity of production is a constant with respect to a certain factor of production if and only if where is any element settled from the set and is a twice differentiable real valued function of variables (ii) The elasticity of production is a constant with respect to all factors of production , , if and only if and reduces to the Cobb-Douglas production function given by where is a positive constant. (iii) The production function satisfies the proportional marginal rate of substitution property if and only if it reduces to the Cobb-Douglas production function given by where is a positive constant.

Proof. Consider the following. (i) The if part of the statement is easy to verify. Next, we prove the only if part. Since the elasticity of production with respect to a certain factor of production is a constant , we have On the other hand, since is a homogeneous of degree , it follows that it can be expressed in the form where can be settled in the set and If we settle such that , then we derive from (32) Replacing now (34) in (31), we obtain and solving the partial differential equations in (35), we derive where is a positive constant, is a twice differentiable real valued function of variables and the symbol “” means that the corresponding term is omitted.The conclusion follows now easily from (32) and (36), taking into account (33). (ii) This assertion follows immediately from (i). (iii) It is easy to show that if is a Cobb-Douglas production function given by then satisfies the proportional marginal rate of substitution property. We prove now the converse. Since satisfies the proportional marginal rate of substitution property, it follows that On the other hand, since is a homogeneous of degree , the Euler homogeneous function theorem implies that From (38) and (39), we obtain Finally, from the above system of partial differential equations, we obtain the solution where is a positive constant and the conclusion follows.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the referees for carefully reading the paper and making valuable comments and suggestions. The second author was supported by CNCS-UEFISCDI, Project no. PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0118.

References

1. I. B. Adinya, B. O. Offem, and G. U. Ikpi, “Application of a stochastic frontier production function for measurement and comparision of technical efficiency of mandarin fish and clown fish production in lowlands reservoirs, ponds and dams of Cross River State, Nigeria,” Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 595–600, 2011.
2. E. Chassot, D. Gascuel, and A. Colomb, “Impact of trophic interactions on production functions and on the ecosystem response to fishing: a simulation approach,” Aquatic Living Resources, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2005.
3. S. T. Cooper and E. Cohn, “Estimation of a frontier production function for the South Carolina educational process,” Economics of Education Review, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 313–327, 1997.
4. M. E. Da Silva Freire and J. J. R. F. Da Silva, “The application of production functions to the higher education system—some examples from Portuguese universities,” Higher Education, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 447–460, 1975.
5. J. M. Boussard, “Bio physical models as detailed engineering production functions,” in Bio-Economic Models Applied to Agricultural Systems, pp. 15–28, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherland, 2011.
6. T. G. Gowing, “Technical change and scale economies in an engineering production function: The case of steam electric power,” Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 135–152, 1974.
7. J. Marsden, D. Pingry, and A. Whinston, “Engineering foundations of production functions,” Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 124–140, 1974.
8. D. L. Martin, D. G. Watts, and J. R. Gilley, “Model and production function for irrigation management,” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 149–164, 1984.
9. C. W. Cobb and P. H. Douglas, “A theory of production,” American Economic Review, vol. 18, pp. 139–165, 1928.
10. A. D. Vîlcu and G. E. Vîlcu, “On some geometric properties of the generalized CES production functions,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 218, no. 1, pp. 124–129, 2011.
11. G. E. Vîlcu, “A geometric perspective on the generalized Cobb-Douglas production functions,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 777–783, 2011.
12. S. K. Mishra, “A brief history of production functions,” The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 6–34, 2010.
13. C. A. Ioan and G. Ioan, “A generalization of a class of production functions,” Applied Economics Letters, vol. 18, pp. 1777–1784, 2011.
14. L. Losonczi, “Production functions having the CES property,” Acta Mathematica Academiae Paedagogicae Nyíregyháziensis, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 113–125, 2010.
15. B.-Y. Chen, “Classification of h-homogeneous production functions with constant elasticity of substitution,” Tamkang Journal of Mathematics, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 321–328, 2012.
16. B.-Y. Chen, “On some geometric properties of h-homogeneous production functions in microeconomics,” Kragujevac Journal of Mathematics, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 343–357, 2011.
17. B.-Y. Chen, “On some geometric properties of quasi-sum production models,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 392, no. 2, pp. 192–199, 2012.
18. B.-Y. Chen, “Geometry of quasy-sum production functions with constant elasticity of substitution property,” Journal of Advanced Mathematical Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 90–97, 2012.
19. B.-Y. Chen, “Classification of homothetic functions with constant elasticity of substitution and its geometric applications,” International Electronic Journal of Geometry, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 67–78, 2012.
20. B.-Y. Chen and G. E. V. Vîlcu, “Geometric classifications of homogeneous production functions,” submitted.