25 views

Uploaded by Yulia Chernukh

- References
- Aggregate Planning
- Why Do New Technologies Complement Skills
- Department of Labor: TableK L
- The Classical View of the Labour Market
- Lecture 1
- Behavioural Aspects of Workmen
- Paper 10 : Cost and Management Accountancy
- Department of Labor: TableI J
- Timing of education
- BE Assignment 1
- 1027RiskLibraryHYG
- Aggregate
- Application and Results of a Skilled Labor Demand Forecast Model for the US Construction Industry
- Department of Labor: TableC D
- dp1335
- 005 Fuentes v. NLRC.pdf
- 479_1_Test
- ch06_4e
- Econ 4351_Practice Exam_Midterm I

You are on page 1of 5

April 12, 2013

Exercise 1

We have to maximize the utility function subject to the budget constraint. The purpose is

deriving the demand for both varieties, 1 and 2. The rst-order conditions can be written as follows:

0c

1

1

= `j

1

0c

1

2

= `j

2

(1)

If we derive both equations in (1), we will come up with the following equality:

c

1

c

2

=

_

j

1

j

2

_

1

1

=

_

j

2

j

1

_ 1

1

(2)

Now, by taking logs on both sides of (2), we will obtain our elasticity of substitution (dened as

@ ln

c

1

c

2

@ ln

p

1

p

2

):

0 ln

_

c1

c2

_

0 ln

_

p1

p2

_ =

1

1 0

o (3)

Logically, the substitutability between both varieties will be the higher the closer is 0 to 1. Now we

have to observe the relation between the previous elasticity and the demand for each variety. By

using (2), we can express c

1

in terms of c

2

and plug it into the budget constraint as follows:

j

2

c

2

+j

1

c

1

= j

2

c

2

+j

1

c

2

_

j

2

j

1

_ 1

1

= 1

1

and then

c

2

_

j

2

+j

1

1

2

j

1

1

_

= 1

that is

c

2

=

1

j

2

_

1 +

_

p1

p2

_

1

_ =

1j

1

2

j

2

_

j

1

2

+j

1

1

=

1

j

2

_

j

1

2

+j

1

1

, where

1

1 0

o (4)

By symmetry, or by using (2) and (4), we can similarly derive that

c

1

=

1

j

1

_

j

1

2

+j

1

1

, where

1

1 0

o (5)

This implies that, when the number of varieties is very high (not only 2, like in this example) the

elasticity of demand of each variety with respect to its own price is exactly o. In that case the

demand for each variety will be increasing in the following price index:

1 =

_

n

i=1

j

1

i

_ 1

1

(6)

Exercise 2

In this case, the total cost of producing good 1 will be (1 +c) C

1

(n, r) and the total cost of

producing good 2 is C

2

(n, r). Industry 1 is a monopolistically competitive sector (with xed costs

proportional to marginal costs) and industry 2 is a perfectly competitive sector. In both cases we

will need to use the zero prot conditions, since in the monopolistically competitive industry the

operating prots are exactly oset by the xed costs. Therefore,

_

_

_

j

1

= (1 +c) c

1

(n, r)

j

2

= c

2

(n, r)

_

_

_

(7)

By applying Shepards lemma (we will explain this in class) to both expressions in (7), we can obtain

that

dj

1

= (1 +c) (a

1L

dn +a

1K

dr)

dj

2

= (a

2L

dn +a

2K

dr)

(8)

where a

iL

=

dci(w;r)

dw

and a

iK

=

dci(w;r)

dr

. Then, we can transform the expressions in (8) to obtain

percentage variations:

dj

1

j

1

=

(1 +c) a

1L

n

(1 +c) c

1

(n, r)

dn

n

+

(1 +c) a

1K

r

(1 +c) c

1

(n, r)

dr

r

=

_

a

1L

n

c

1

(n, r)

_

dn

n

+

_

a

1K

r

c

1

(n, r)

_

dr

r

dj

2

j

2

=

_

a

2L

n

c

2

(n, r)

_

dn

n

+

_

a

2K

r

c

2

(n, r)

_

dr

r

(9)

2

By dening

0

iL

a

iL

w

ci(w;r)

0

iK

a

iK

r

ci(w;r)

= (1 0

iL

)

(10)

we can restate (9) as

^ j

i

= 0

iL

^ n +0

iK

^ r

and writing in matricial form

_

_

^ j

1

^ j

2

_

_

=

_

_

0

1L

0

1K

0

2L

0

2K

_

_

_

_

^ n

^ r

_

_

In order to see whether the Stolper-Samuelson theorem applies, we need to solve for

_

_

^ n

^ r

_

_

. Our

assumptions are that the price of the labor-intensive sector grows more than the price of the capital

intensive sector (that is, 0

1L

0

2L

and ^ j

1

^ j

2

). Then, by inverting the matrix 0 we can get, after

rearranging, that

_

_

^ n

^ r

_

_

=

1

j0j

_

_

0

2K

0

1K

0

2L

0

1L

_

_

1

_

_

^ j

1

^ j

2

_

_

(11)

where j0j = 0

1L

0

2K

0

1K

0

2L

(12)

which implies that

^ n = ^ j

1

+ (^ j

1

^ j

2

)

0

1K

0

2K

0

1K

^ j

1

and hence

^ r < ^ j

1

As a result, we can say that the Stolper-Samuelson theorem still holds in this situation: when the

price of the good intensive in labor rises, the wage goes up by a higher percentage than such price.

Therefore, the remuneration of labor increases in real terms. By the same token, using the labor

and capital market clearing equations, it is possible to prove (raising either the stock of labor or the

stock of capital) that the Rybczynski theorem holds as well. We can not guarantee the validity of

these theorems when the xed cost in industry 1 is not strictly proportional to the marginal cost.

Q = o

_

1

:

1

30000

(j j)

_

(13)

Expression (13) species the individual rm demand in this monopolistically-competitive sector.

The rms are supposed to be very numerous, so that they can not aect importantly the average

3

price j, which is taken as given. The technology is identical for both countries (H and 1) and given

by the following total cost function:

TC = 750000000 + 5000Q

o

H

= 900000

o

F

= 1160000

We will solve now for the (long-run) equilibrium price and the number of rms in country H (in

autarky). It could be done similarly for country 1. It is then straightforward to infer that variety

will be larger, prices lower and welfare higher under free trade (when o = o

H

+o

F

= 2060000). In

order to equalize marginal revenue with marginal cost (condition for prot maximization in every

rm) we need to derive rst the inverse demand function. To that purpose, we can solve for j in

(13):

j = j + 30000

_

1

:

Q

o

_

then

Revenue per rm = jQ =

_

30000

:

+ j

_

Q30000

Q

2

o

(14)

By dierentiating (14) with respect to Q, we will get the marginal revenue, which must be equalized

to the marginal cost (5000) to derive the following expression:

60000

o

Q =

30000

:

+ j 5000 (15)

and since, by symmetry, we know that j = j, then from (15)

30000

:

= j 5000 (16)

Moreover, in the long-run equilibrium the zero-prot condition implies that

j = j = TC = 5000 +

750000000

Q

(17)

Given that, clearly from (13), Q =

S

n

, we can use (16) and (17) to write

30000

:

=

750000000:

o

i.e.

:

2

=

30000o

750000000

(18)

In particular, for o

H

= 900000 we can derive that

: = 6

Q = j = 10000

4

Prices will be lower and variety higher when the size of the market increases, which determines

that free trade will always be superior (in terms of welfare) to autarky. The reasons (lower markups

facing higher elasticity of individual demand) were already commented in class.

5

- ReferencesUploaded byeniogun16
- Aggregate PlanningUploaded bykushal
- Why Do New Technologies Complement SkillsUploaded byGabriela
- Department of Labor: TableK LUploaded byDepartment of Labor
- The Classical View of the Labour MarketUploaded byChangaiz Farooq
- Lecture 1Uploaded byUy Krav
- Behavioural Aspects of WorkmenUploaded byRavi Valakrishnan
- Paper 10 : Cost and Management AccountancyUploaded byJatinder
- Department of Labor: TableI JUploaded byDepartment of Labor
- Timing of educationUploaded byplegros
- BE Assignment 1Uploaded byAmbika Sharma
- 1027RiskLibraryHYGUploaded byKostic Milan
- AggregateUploaded byjitukr
- Application and Results of a Skilled Labor Demand Forecast Model for the US Construction IndustryUploaded byinventionjournals
- Department of Labor: TableC DUploaded byDepartment of Labor
- dp1335Uploaded byAnonymous Hnv6u54H
- 005 Fuentes v. NLRC.pdfUploaded bymiss.escober
- 479_1_TestUploaded bykiffeur69
- ch06_4eUploaded byFerdinand Macol
- Econ 4351_Practice Exam_Midterm IUploaded byAdam Renfro
- VariancesUploaded byShashankSingh
- Introduction to Heckscher OhlinUploaded byShrikant Modi
- EconomicsUploaded byVsdoshi
- Training Need AnalysisUploaded byPrachi Priya
- Effects of Aggregate Shocks in Inventory ModelsUploaded byrberrospi
- Urban Homework 2 - Bhavik ModyUploaded byBhavik Mody
- Micro Sample Midterm AnsUploaded byPranjali Tripathi
- 1075-1086.pdfUploaded bySoni Jigar
- Tutorial 1 - Labor SupplyUploaded byOtokuKimoto
- EW Macro 5Uploaded byGalib Hossain

- Chapter 8 Ken BlackUploaded byeverytimeyoulie
- stolt 1Uploaded byPeterWang
- Virtualization FlexNet Publisher WhitepaperUploaded byFlexeraSoftware
- ACFINA3 SyllabusUploaded byNicole Hao
- EBS_12.2.1_L2_Implement_and_Use_TOI_Demantra_Implementation.pdfUploaded bynsrinivas08
- Insead MBA BrochureUploaded byJonathan González Soler
- Directorate of Defense Trade Controls AnnouncementUploaded byjoshblackman
- S.E.C. Inspector General's RecommendationsUploaded byDealBook
- PMP Maths Flash CardUploaded bybalaganesh75
- Heidi Scott v Mario Savoldi/Angelo Savoldi/World Entertainment NetworkUploaded byindeedwrestling
- Peachtree Networks IntroUploaded byMBilalA06
- itc hotelUploaded byMukta Biswas
- Violag v. Ba FinanceUploaded byRavenFox
- AvonUploaded byshani27
- Multifactor Decision MakingUploaded byRafajel
- Business Finance TG.pdfUploaded bytina
- tqmUploaded byVeronica Cox
- ibstock.pdfUploaded byDipanshu Nagar
- Contract Sample OriginalUploaded byalex19881988
- Strategic Marketing - Case Nokia.docxUploaded byaldo121094
- Chap 6.0 Manufacturing Cost EstimationUploaded byIR Ika EtyEtyka Dora
- 2b QCO OverviewUploaded byJose Ortega
- US Internal Revenue Service: p3218Uploaded byIRS
- ANkit Cadila Ppt2Uploaded byAmit Pasi
- The Benetton Group and Shock Advertising Marketing EssayUploaded bychandan
- GD PI AnthologyUploaded byabhishekise10
- LAY OFFUploaded bySenthil Kumarra Rajaa Rajaa
- Mgt Asinment Case Study 03_1Uploaded byodvut
- Imprtance and Scope of Marketing ManagementUploaded byShehbaz Haider Soomro
- ReportUploaded byJulien Uppiah