This paper shows that it is not appropriate to consider increasing returns to scale in the location theory of the firm, when the production function is assumed to be concave. The paper assumes that the production function is quasi-concave. If the marginal revenue curve cuts through the marginal cost curve from above only once, then comparative static analysis can be applied in the case of increasing returns to scale.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arrow, K. and Enthoven, A. (1961). Quasi-Concave Programming. Econometrica , Vol. 29: 779-800.
2.
Coes, D.V. (1977). Firm Output and Changes in Uncertainty. American Economic Review, Vol. 67: 249-51.
3.
Henderson, J.M. and Quandt, R.C. (1980). Microeconomic Theory: A Mathematical Approach . McGraw-Hill, New York.
4.
Leland, H.E. (1972). Theory of the Firm Facing Uncertain Demand. American Economic Review, Vol. 62: 278-291.
5.
Lippman, S.A. and McCall, J.J. (1981). The Economics of Uncertainty: Selected Topics and Probabilitic Methods, In Arrow, K. J. and Intrilligator, M. D. (eds) Handbook of Economics, Vol. 1: 211-84. AmsterdamNorth Holland.
6.
Mai, C.C. (1984). Demand Function and Location theory of the Firm Under Price Uncertainty. Urban Studies, Vol. 21: 459-64.
7.
Samuelson, P. (1983). Foundations of Economic Analysis, Enlarged Edition, Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.
8.
Sandmo, A. (1971). Competitive Firm Under Price Uncertainty. American Economic Review, Vol. 61: 65-73.
9.
Silberberg, E. (1978). The Structure of Economics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
10.
Takayama, A. (1974). Mathematical Economics. The Dryden Press. Hinsdale, ILL.
11.
Woodward, R.S. (1973). The Iso-outlay Function and Variable Transport Costs. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 13: 349-55.
