0 views

Uploaded by Muhammad Rizwan Bhatti

Microeconomics , translog function, elasticity of substitution

- Ethics in production.docx
- Cob Douglas Production Theory
- Stata_C8
- 17096667
- Analyzing the Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer
- BE Post-Work Session 5
- Rio ECN212 Lesson4 quiz
- Innovation and productivity in services and manufacturing: the role of ICT
- Intercontinental Evidence on Socioeconomic Status and Early Childhood- Cognitive Skills- Is Latin Am
- Econ Sg Chap07app
- IB_0910_LRproductionwww
- Barro Government spending
- bhmgmt_chaps1-26
- monthly-specific-daily-global-solar-radiation-estimates-based-on-sunshine-hours-in-wa-ghana
- Digital Media Dependency Relational Orientation and Social Networking_Bahk Etal (1)
- An Evaluation of Alternative Proxies for the Market s Assessment of Unexpected Earnings
- Production and Cost
- 6Production Function
- Production and Costs
- 42 Managerial Economics

You are on page 1of 18

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

M.Phil. Economics

TERM PAPER

Production Function.

SESSION 2016-2018

SUPERVISOR

Dr.Bilal Mehmood (Lecturer)

(NAME/DESIGNATION)

TABLE CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………….…..1

1.1 OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………………………2

2. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………2

4.3 RESULTS………………………………………………………………………....9

4.5 INTERPRETATION…………………………………………………………….11

5.2 RESULTS………………………………………………………………………..13

5.3 INTERPRETATION……………………………………………………………..13

6. REFRENCES………………………………………………………………………….....14

7. ANNEXURE …………………………………………………………………………….16

1. Introduction:

In modern applied economics and especially in making policies, Computable General Equilibrium

(CGE) models have become one of the leading tools to evaluate policy measures and alternative

scenarios (Goulder, 2002, Böhringen, 2003). CGE, econometric, input-output or linear

programming models use different types of nested production function with Constant Elasticity of

Scale (CES) to describe the production of an economy (Kemfert, 1998). Substitution elasticities

are key parameters in these models since measure the ease or difficulty of substituting between

inputs in production. Therefore elasticities play an important role in any economic assessment of

any policy. In this paper I’ll discuss special production functions. Nature imposes technological

constraints on firms. Only certain combinations of inputs are feasible ways to produce a given

amount of output. And firms must limit itself to technological feasible production plan. So, much

attention is being paid to establishing its production relationship. The possibility of efficient

capital-labor substitution is crucial for the success of most fiscal, financial and technological

policies that are designed to increase employment in developing countries through the adoption of

labor-intensive techniques of production. The easiest way to describe feasible production plan is

to list the set of all combination of inputs and outputs that comprise a technological feasible way

is called a production function. It’s purely a technical relation which connects factor inputs and

outputs. It shows the maximum amount of output that can be produced from any specified set of

inputs given the existing technology. It’s a flow concept so production refers to units of output

over period of time. If the possibilities exist for efficient capital labor substitution then they can be

substituted for capital without necessarily resulting in a decline in output. This issue crucially

depends on whether elasticity of substitution is positive or not. . The variation in the estimates of

the capital labor substitution mainly depends on the type of production function used i.e. Constant

Elasticity of Substitution (CES) and Variable Elasticity of Substitution (VES). In empirical

literature, much attention is being paid to establishing its production relationships which are based

on certain restrictive assumptions. The most famous of these production functions is in CES

production function (CESPF) and is also known as ‘Work Horse’ production function. It comes

with the assumption of EOS = 1. However, EOS ⋛ 1 is a more realistic assumption which is

permitted in constant elasticity of substitution (CES) production function, formulated in CESPF.

1

The CES production function (CESPF) arbitrarily constrains EOS to be a constant and does not

allow it to vary with a change in factor input ratio.

This paper uses the same to find the elasticity of substitution (EOS) between inputs in Itehad

Chemicals industry in Pakistan to evaluate the possibility of substitution between them without

compromising their performance.

1.1 Objectives

Following are the objectives of the paper:

1 To estimate the elasticity of substitution between labor and capital, this is done on the basis of

CES Production Function in Itehad Chemicals ltd of Pakistan.

2 To find the type of returns to scale that is applicable in Itehad Chemicals ltd of Pakistan.

3 To estimate Cobb-Dougles Production Function (CDPF).

4 And to estimate Transcendental Logarithmic Production Function (TPF)

2. Literature Review

Kemfert (1998) estimates the substitution elasticity of a nested CES production function for the

entire German industry and individual industrial sectors. She estimates the elasticity for tree nested

structures1 and concludes that a nested CES function with a nest of capital and energy ((KE)L) is

the most useful for the entire German industry, but for several industrial sectors a nest of capital

and labor ((KL)E) might be closer to the reality.

(Kmenta, 1967), Van der Werf (2008) and Okagawa and Ban (2008) use a cost function based

approach, where they take advantage of the cost function associated with a specific production

function and derive a linear system of equation from the corresponding optimal input demand. The

disadvantage of this approach is that it requires exhaustive price data, which is in most cases rather

difficult to obtain, especially for sector specific estimates. Van der Werf (2008) estimates a 2-level

nested production function, using the industrial level data from 12 OECD countries in for 1978-

1996. He finds that the nesting structure having capital and labour in the same node fits reality

most closely. Similarly, Okagawa and Ban (2008) estimate a nested CES function using another

OECD dataset. Their data set is more refined compared to that used in Van der Werf (2008), where

the data are disaggregated into 7 sectors; the Okagawa and Ban (2008) data set disaggregated into

19 sectors. Both study use cost function based approach to avoid problems.

2

Koesler & Schymura (2012) confirm that non-linear estimation techniques perform significantly

better than standard linear estimations using Kmenta approximation.

Su, Zhou, Ichi, Ren, & Mu (2012) estimate the China’s elasticity of substitution of two-level CES

KLE production function by three possible combination of nesting: (KL)E, (KE)L and (EL)K.

Mehmood, B., Nisar, A., & Rehman, H. U. (2015) studied the magnitude of elasticity of

substitution (EOS) among factors of production to analyze the impact on the Pakistani banking

sector. They draw upon a comprehensive time series dataset covering the period 1980-2013. To

achieve that purpose the analysis employed Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) production

function in order to follow up a quantitative evaluation of Elasticity of Substitution in the

Pakistan’s banking sector. The paper also investigated returns to scale during the time period under

consideration.

Two most important neo-classical production function are Cobb-Douglas production

function and constant elasticity of substitution (CES).

The Cobb-Douglas production function is widely used to represent the relationships between its

inputs in an economy , i.e. physical capital and labor, and the amount of output produced. It's a

means for calculating the impact of changes in the inputs, the relevant efficiencies, and the yields

of a production activity. It was created by Charles Cobb (mathematician) and Paul Dougles

(economist) in 1927, while its functional form was proposed by Knut Wicksell (economist) in 19th

centuary. It lies between linear and fixed proportion production function with elasticity of

substition equals to one. In 1928, Charles Cobb and Paul Douglas presented the view that

production output is the result of the amount of labor and physical capital invested. This analysis

produced a calculation that is still in use today, largely because of its accuracy, fexibility and ease

of use.

The basic mathematical form of the Cobb-Douglas production function for two factors is:

3

L = the amount of labor expended, which is typically expressed in hours.

K = the amount of physical capital input, such as the number of hours a particular machine,

operation, or perhaps factory.

A = the total factor productivity (TFP) that measures the change in output that isn't the result of

the inputs. Typically, this change in TFP is the result of an improvement in efficiency or

technology.

The beta 1 and 2 reflect the output elasticity of the inputs where β1 is constant between 0 and 1 (0

< β < 1 ). Output elasticity is the change in the output that results from a change in either labor

or physical capital.

Least squares regression of log output (value added) on a constant and the logarithm of labor and

capital produce parameter estimates of a Cobb-Douglas production function.

Ln Y = B0 + B1 ln K + B2 ln L

Method: Least Squares

Date: 12/30/17 Time: 13:53

Sample: 2001 2016

Included observations: 16

LN_DK 0.133141 0.066969 1.988102 0.0683

LN_DL 0.624216 0.154166 4.048989 0.0014

Adjusted R-squared 0.906931 S.D. dependent var 0.467710

S.E. of regression 0.142685 Akaike info criterion -0.888992

Sum squared resid 0.264668 Schwarz criterion -0.744132

Log likelihood 10.11194 Hannan-Quinn criter. -0.881574

F-statistic 74.08565 Durbin-Watson stat 1.246655

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

4

Ln (natural logarithmic series) generated.

Taking antilog of the production function we get the elasticity of the respective factors in their

powers

Y= 0.41*K0.13L0.62

The model represents the Cobb-Douglas production function under decreasing return to scale as

the inputs will increase, the output will increase but at a lesser rate.

18.6

18.4

.06 18.2

.04

18.0

.02

17.8

.00

-.02

-.04

05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

Return to scale is a long run concept when all the factors of production are variable. In long run

output can be increased by increasing factor of production. An increase in scale means that increase

in factors of production in same proportion, output will increase but the increase may be at a

increasing rate, constant rate or decreasing rate. Cobb-Dougles and constant elasticity of

substitution exhibits constant returns to scale i.e. sum of exponents for capital and labor β1 and β2

should equal 1.

In the above model, 0.13+0.62= 0.75 that is less than 1 so the model is under DRS (decreasing

return to scale).

5

DY

4,800

4,400

4,000

3,600

3,200

2,800

2,400

2,000

1,600

1,200

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

dl

2,400

2,000

1,600

1,200

800

400

0

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

dk

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

6

4. CES production function:

Arrow, Chenery, Minhas and Solow in their new famous paper of 1961 developed the Constant

Elasticity of Substitution (CES) function. This function consists of three variables Y, K and L, and

three parameters.

In this study I have used fixed assets as capital denoted by “K” and employee’s salaries as labor

denoted by “L”, as my independent variable which are regressed against total sales i.e “Y”.

𝑌𝑡 = 𝛼𝑌𝑡−1 + µ1𝑡

𝛥𝑌𝑡 = (𝛼 − 1)𝑌𝑡−1 + µ1𝑡

In the same way for capital,

𝐾𝑡 = 𝛽𝐾𝑡−1 + µ2𝑡

𝛥𝐾𝑡 = (𝛽 − 1)𝐾𝑡−1 + µ2𝑡

And labor,

𝐿𝑡 = 𝜏𝐿𝑡−1 + µ3𝑡

𝛥𝐿𝑡 = (𝜏 − 1)𝐿𝑡−1 + µ3𝑡

𝑌 = 𝐴 [𝛿𝐾− 𝑝+ (𝑙 − 𝛿)𝐿− 𝑝] − 𝑣/ 𝑝

Where; Y = total output,

K = capital,

L = labor,

A = efficiency parameter indicating the state of technology and organizational aspects of

production. It shows that with technological and/or organizational changes, the efficiency

parameter leads to a shift in the production function

p(rho) = the substitution parameter which determines the elasticity of substitution

7

δ = the distribution parameter or capital intensity factor coefficient concerned with the relative

factor shares in the total output.

𝑌 = 𝐴 [𝛿𝐾− 𝑝+ (𝑙 − 𝛿)𝐿− 𝑝] − 𝑣/ 𝑝

CESPF yields any value of EOS (i.e. 0 < EOS < ∞). It posits log-linear relationships among

variables and also requires that the elasticity of substitution be the sables and requires that the

elasticity of substitution be same at all points of the isoquant map. Therefore, applying Kmenta

approximation to the CES.

𝛽1 −2 𝛽3 (𝛽1 +𝛽2 ) 1

Where, δ = 𝛽 ; 𝑣 = 𝛽1 +𝛽2 , ; 𝑝 = ;𝜎=

1 +𝛽2 𝛽1 𝛽2 1+𝜌

Variables ADF

At level 1st Difference

𝑙𝑛|𝑌| -1.283792 2.724457

𝑙𝑛|𝐾| 2.915914 0.113380

𝑙𝑛|𝐿| -2.157979 0.633874

𝐾

(𝑙𝑛 | | )2 -0.349154 -0.089182

𝐿

8

4.4. Parameters of Kamenta Approximation and CES

Parameter Estimates

Kamenta Approximation (FMOLS) CES

𝛽0 2.724457 Δ 0.15

𝛽1 0.113380 𝑣 0.74

𝛽2 0.633874 P -1.85

𝛽3 -0.089182 𝜎𝐶𝐸𝑆 0.35

Adj R2 0.906696 (1-δ) 0.84

𝐾

𝑙𝑛|𝑌𝑡 | = +(𝑙𝑛|𝐾𝑡 |) + (𝑙𝑛|𝐿𝑡 |) + (𝑙𝑛 | |)2

𝐿

Method: Least Squares

Date: 12/29/17 Time: 03:12

Sample: 2001 2016

Included observations: 16

LN_DK 0.113380 0.069999 1.619740 0.1313

LN_DL 0.633874 0.154673 4.098158 0.0015

9

LN(DK_DL) -0.089182 0.090681 -0.983468 0.3448

Adjusted R-squared 0.906696 S.D. dependent var 0.467710

S.E. of regression 0.142865 Akaike info criterion -0.841509

Sum squared resid 0.244926 Schwarz criterion -0.648362

Log likelihood 10.73207 Hannan-Quinn criter. -0.831618

F-statistic 49.58826 Durbin-Watson stat 1.085224

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000

isoquant at D(-1.85)

12

C 10

a

8

p

i 6

t 4

a

2

l

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

labor

To check convexity

= (1-a/a))-1.85+1(K/L)-1.85K/L2

= (0.15/0.84)-0.85(K/L)-1.85K/L2

10

As the values are positive we will be get the answer positive so Quasi-convexity is evident.

4.5. Interpretation

For CD production function, the EOS is equivalent to 1. σces = 0.35 implies that production function

for Itehad chemicals is quite close to case of Cobb Dougles but CES is more suitable functional

form. Value of δ shows the share of capital in total sales i.e. 15.1% and (1- δ) depicts the labor-

share in total sales i.e. 84.9%. ⱱ shows the elasticity of scale, which allows for increasing and

decreasing return to scale degree of homogeneity of function can be observed from ⱱ(= 0.7463<1).

It implies DRS prevail in Itehad Chemicals industry. p = -0.114, represents the substitution

parameter that determine EOS (σces). σces is 0.35 < 1 implying low substitution-ability between

inputs i.e. employee wages (proxy for labor) labor and total assets (proxy for capital). This shows

that labor and capital are relatively not easily substitutable in long run. It implies changes in

capital. The R2 shows that 92% of the variations in the dependent variable are explained by the

independent variables. The low elasticity of substitution between factors of production implies that

there exists low flexibility to adjust the factors of production in response to changes in factor prices

and/or growth in demand for products of the Itehad chemicals industry emanating from any

external or internal reasons.

Translog production function is a more flexible production function, which was suggested by

Christensen et al. (1973). The benefit of using transcendental logarithmic function is the elasticity

as it can estimate almost any functional formula (Intriligator, 1978). The Translog function is

distinct flexible function due to presence of both linear and quadratic terms with the ability of

using more than two factor inputs. It can be approximated by second order Taylor series

(Christensen et al., 1973).in this production function level of production is measured through

production function which is the technical relationship between inputs and output. Applying the

transcendental logarithmic model in the above equation we use the values of natural logarithmic

series and using square and cross-term values in the new model.

In this study I’m using two input case and can be written as.

Y= f (K.L)

Ln (Y) = Bo + B1ln (K) + B2ln (L) + B3ln (K) 2 + B4ln (L) 2 + B5ln (K)* ln (L) + µ

11

Where,

ln = Natural Logarithm

Y = total sales

K = Fixed Assets

L = Employee’s wages

Where β0, β1, β2, β3, β4, β5, are associated output elasticities that are to be estimated and µ is the

regression disturbance.

Conventionally, symmetry conditions are imposed on Translog function i.e.

βLK = βKL

Moreover, constant returns to scale (CRS) requires following conditions

to hold:

βL + βK = 1

βKK + βLK = 0

5.1. Results

Method: Least Squares

Date: 12/30/17 Time: 14:48

Sample: 2001 2016

Included observations: 16

LN_K -3.217502 1.586560 -2.027973 0.0700

LN_L 5.320827 4.676227 1.137846 0.2817

LN_K_2 -0.349375 0.220710 -1.582958 0.1445

LN_L_2 -1.740425 1.208721 -1.439890 0.1805

LN_K_LN_L 1.852177 0.886197 2.090028 0.0631

Adjusted R-squared 0.945990 S.D. dependent var 0.203124

12

S.E. of regression 0.047206 Akaike info criterion -2.988583

Sum squared resid 0.022284 Schwarz criterion -2.698863

Log likelihood 29.90867 Hannan-Quinn criter. -2.973747

F-statistic 53.54492 Durbin-Watson stat 1.389615

Prob(F-statistic) 0.000001

Substituting the values in the model

Log(Y) = -0.78 – 3.21 log(K) + 5.32 log(L) – 0.34 log(K) 2 – 1.74 log(L) 2 + 1.85 log(K)*log (L)

We get the translog model with the respective coefficients

5.2. Interpretation:

The model represents that the production of Itehad Chemicals in Pakistan is having a positive

relationship with labor while negative relation with fixed assts. So we can state that the company

is labor-intensive. Itehad Chemicals is growing manufacturing set of industries and the rate of the

capital and labor significance points out the rate of technology the industry uses.

6. References

1. Arrow, K. J., Chenery, H. B., Minhas, B. S., & Solow, R. M. (1961). Capital-labor

substitution and economic efficiency. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 225-

250.

2. Goulder, L. H. (2002). Environmental policy making in economies with prior tax

distortions. Edward Elgar Publishing.

3. Henningsen, A., & Henningsen, G. (2011). Econometric Estimation of the" Constant

Elasticity of Substitution" Function in R: Package micEconCES. Institute of Food and

Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen.

4. Kemfert, C. (1998). Estimated substitution elasticities of a nested CES production

function approach for Germany. Energy Economics, 20(3), 249–264.

doi:10.1016/S0140-9883(97)00014-5

5. Khan, A., Mehmood, B., & Sair, S. A. THE VARIABLE ELASTICITY OF

SUBSTITUTION PRODUCTION FUNCTION: A CASE STUDY FOR PAKISTANI

BANKING SECTOR.

6. Kmenta, J. (1967). On estimation of the CES production function. International

Economic Review, 8(2), 180-189.

13

7. Koesler, S., & Schymura, M. (2012). Substitution Elasticities in a CES Production

Framework-An Empirical Analysis on the Basis of Non-Linear Least Squares

Estimations.

8. Mehmood, B., Nisar, A., & Rehman, H. U. (2015). TECHNOLOGY MATTERS:

EVIDENCE FROM PAKISTANI BANKING SECTOR USING FLEXIBLE

TRANSCENDENTAL LOGARITHMIC PRODUCTION FUNCTION. Pakistan

Economic and Social Review, 53(2), 203.

9. Rečka, L. (2013). Estimation of the elasticity of substitution of production factors in

CEE economies (No. 5420). EcoMod.

10. Revankar, N. S. (1971). A class of variable elasticity of substitution production

functions. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 61-71.

11. Su, X., Zhou, W., Nakagami, K. I., Ren, H., & Mu, H. (2012). Capital stock-labor-

energy substitution and production efficiency study for China. Energy

Economics, 34(4), 1208-1213.

12. Van der Werf, E. (2008). Production functions for climate policy modeling: An

empirical analysis. Energy economics, 30(6), 2964-2979.

14

7. Annexure:

2,001 1,239 155 380 3.093071 2.190332 4.797553 2.579784 6.655283 5.650582

2,002 1,307 150 408 3.116276 2.176091 4.735373 2.61066 6.815546 5.681035

2,003 1,321 189 734 3.120903 2.276462 5.182278 2.865696 8.212214 6.523648

2,004 1,514 739 536 3.180126 2.868644 8.229121 2.729165 7.44834 7.829003

2,005 1,903 687 848 3.279439 2.836957 8.048324 2.928396 8.575502 8.307732

2,006 2,158 2,510 1,008 3.334051 3.399674 11.55778 3.003461 9.020775 10.21079

2,007 2,534 2,360 962 3.403807 3.372912 11.37654 2.983175 8.899334 10.06199

2,008 2,685 2,316 918 3.428944 3.364739 11.32147 2.962843 8.778437 9.969191

2,009 3,633 2,598 1,212 3.560265 3.414639 11.65976 3.083503 9.507988 10.52905

2,010 3,258 2,471 1,261 3.512951 3.392873 11.51159 3.100715 9.614434 10.52033

2,011 3,310 2,499 1,347 3.519828 3.397766 11.54482 3.129368 9.792942 10.63286

2,012 4,004 2,515 1,346 3.602494 3.400538 11.56366 3.129045 9.790923 10.64044

2,013 4,278 2,496 1,619 3.631241 3.397245 11.54127 3.209247 10.29927 10.9026

15

2,014 4,104 2,485 1,704 3.613207 3.395326 11.52824 3.23147 10.4424 10.97189

2,015 4,046 3,756 1,437 3.607026 3.574726 12.77866 3.157457 9.969533 11.28704

2,016 4,557 3,638 2,040 3.658679 3.560863 12.67974 3.30963 10.95365 11.78514

2,001 6 5.043425 5.940171 -0.89675 35.28563 25.43614 0.804154

2,002 6 5.010635 6.011267 -1.00063 36.13533 25.10647 1.001264

2,003 7 5.241747 6.598509 -1.35676 43.54032 27.47591 1.840803

2,004 6 6.605298 6.284134 0.321164 39.49034 43.62996 0.103146

2,005 7 6.532334 6.742881 -0.21055 45.46644 42.67139 0.04433

2,006 7 7.828038 7 0.912315 47.82723 61.27818 0.832318

2,007 7 7.766417 6.869014 0.897402 47.18336 60.31723 0.805331

2,008 7 7.747597 6.822197 0.925399 46.54238 60.02526 0.856364

2,009 7 7.862497 7 0.76247 50.41039 61.81886 0.581361

2,010 7 7.812378 7 0.672718 50.97475 61.03325 0.452549

2,011 7 7.823646 7 0.618011 51.92118 61.20944 0.381937

2,012 7 7.830028 7 0.625136 51.91048 61.30934 0.390794

2,013 7 7.822445 7 0.432881 54.60566 61.19064 0.187386

2,014 7 7.818028 7 0.377294 55.36452 61.12156 0.142351

2,015 7 8.23111 7 0.960797 52.85745 67.75117 0.923131

2,016 8 8.199189 8 0.578484 58.07515 67.22671 0.334644

16

- Ethics in production.docxUploaded byGaurav Pareek
- Cob Douglas Production TheoryUploaded byamkumar1975
- Stata_C8Uploaded byDumy Negura
- 17096667Uploaded byBrainy12345
- Analyzing the Effectiveness of University Technology TransferUploaded byjoe004
- BE Post-Work Session 5Uploaded byvjpopines
- Rio ECN212 Lesson4 quizUploaded byStella
- Innovation and productivity in services and manufacturing: the role of ICTUploaded byCamilo Martinez
- Intercontinental Evidence on Socioeconomic Status and Early Childhood- Cognitive Skills- Is Latin AmUploaded byRoger Zevallos
- Econ Sg Chap07appUploaded byalyr
- IB_0910_LRproductionwwwUploaded byझज्यापू
- Barro Government spendingUploaded bying_jlcarrillo8784
- bhmgmt_chaps1-26Uploaded bySudip Ghosh
- monthly-specific-daily-global-solar-radiation-estimates-based-on-sunshine-hours-in-wa-ghanaUploaded byIJSTR Research Publication
- Digital Media Dependency Relational Orientation and Social Networking_Bahk Etal (1)Uploaded byBambi Mrr
- An Evaluation of Alternative Proxies for the Market s Assessment of Unexpected EarningsUploaded byZhang Peilin
- Production and CostUploaded byJintu Moni Barman
- 6Production FunctionUploaded bybaburajpatel
- Production and CostsUploaded byViswanatha Rao T
- 42 Managerial EconomicsUploaded bypoojanew
- Report 12242244 Sds dUploaded byMohit Agarwal
- Pertemuan 9 SI 2 Regresi Linier BergandaUploaded byWardiman M Sakir
- Lindahl Family Background and School PerformanceUploaded byRosario Arrieta
- 10.1.1.684.2201Uploaded byAyub Ardani
- 6383-15199-1-PBUploaded byLanang Tanu
- 0iDUploaded byocchitya
- Polynom OrthogonalUploaded byrahsarah
- jresv47n2p75_A1bUploaded byMaria Angelin
- 380 FinalUploaded bym_iham
- 10 Chapter 4Uploaded bykavitachordiya86

- Home Economics Mcqs PaperUploaded byzuhaib
- FINAL REPORT.docxUploaded byMuhammad Rizwan Bhatti
- TERM PAPER.docxUploaded byMuhammad Rizwan Bhatti
- Census PopulationUploaded byMuhammad Rizwan Bhatti
- Development Econ-Lecture 9Uploaded byMuhammad Rizwan Bhatti
- The frontiers of development studies: Some issues of development policy by Paul StreetenUploaded byMuhammad Rizwan Bhatti
- Panel101.pdfUploaded byAudrey Freitas
- Technology measurmentUploaded byMuhammad Rizwan Bhatti
- 300 Most Repeated Questions.docxUploaded bymoazam tariq
- Pak Studies, Gen Knwledge, Geography Misc.Uploaded byAnonymous wPh5WqVjxR

- Vidhyadhar NagarUploaded byMeha Nair
- Argentina - A Case Study on the Plan Jefes y Jefas de Hogar Desocupados.pdfUploaded byNeil Arthur Hoteph
- CHAPTER 2 Discount Rate and Cash DiscountUploaded byKiki Purwaningsih
- Middle East 2017 and beyondUploaded byMuhammad Azhar Saleem Astrologer
- Special Events and Activities.revised Fees 01-09-18Uploaded byL. A. Paterson
- Reaction Paper ElasticityUploaded byelizabeth_cruz_53
- Economics AQA as Unit 2 Workbook Answers (1)Uploaded byFegsdf Sdasdf
- 2008 LCCI Level 1 (1017) Specimen Paper AnswersUploaded byTszkin Pak
- By Datuk JC FongUploaded byKhairul Nizam
- Econ200pps3Uploaded bykoolruns
- AmwayUploaded bysalonid17
- lugusic amra people place 699 56 1Uploaded byapi-196028005
- 19464413 Industrial RevolutionUploaded byRidham Vadalia
- A quantum theory of money and value - David Orrell (2016)Uploaded byFelipe Correa
- Energy Resources in the Eastern Mediterranean: Source for Cooperation or Fuel for TensionUploaded byGerman Marshall Fund of the United States
- Mind MapUploaded byShu Sheng
- Acct 212 Homework 6 Chapter 23 qUploaded byLucky Ly
- US Treasury: savdc2-98Uploaded byTreasury
- OpTransactionHistory20-07-2018Uploaded byAbhi Shek
- MPRDC - Company ListUploaded byarvind
- chapter 22Uploaded byapi-155418010
- Stirling Engine for Green Energy RevolutionUploaded byFRANCIS FUNG
- HPCL notificationUploaded bykalyanm203515
- History of Tax in PakistanUploaded bySaimSafdar
- 2007 BIR-RMC ContentsUploaded byMary Grace Caguioa Agas
- Firm ValuationUploaded byAkshat Jain
- Banking Review 2013Uploaded byomerakif
- Consumer BehaviorUploaded bychaitu34
- International Affairs MCQS By M Imtiaz ShahidUploaded bymimtiazshahid
- EconomicsUploaded byMya Sanvictores