Journal of Economic Perspectives — Volume 7, Number 3 — Summer 1993 — Pages 185–192

Retrospectives
The Law of Diminishing Returns

Stanley L. Brue

This feature addresses the history of economic words and ideas. The hope
is to deepen the workaday dialogue of economists, while perhaps also casting
new light on ongoing questions. If you have suggestions for future topics or
authors, please write to Joseph Persky, c/o Journal of Economic Perspectives,
Department of Economics (M/C 144), The University of Illinois at Chicago,
Box 4348, Chicago, IL 60680.

Introduction

From introductory economics to theoretical papers, the law of diminishing

returns is a part of every economist's tool kit. But the evolution of this law in
the history of economic analysis reveals more complexity than is perhaps
generally understood. Even among those most responsible for its evolution, the
law has been loosely defined, and many so-called "proofs" of the law have been
weak and incomplete. Moreover, those who expounded the law and its eco-
nomic implications rarely offered empirical evidence to support it. In fact,
economists have offered alternative explanations for rising short-run marginal
cost curves, and other implications of the law of diminishing returns. This last
point raises an interesting question: Have economists used the law of diminish-
ing returns simply for convenience, or is the law fundamental to economic
analysis?

• Stanley L. Brue is Professor of Economics, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma,

Washington.
186 Journal of Economic Perspectives

A History of Conceptual Ambiguity

Economists have long defined the law of diminishing returns imprecisely

and inconsistently. To modern economists, diminishing returns in the most
basic sense occurs when marginal product falls as a rising amount of a variable
homogeneous input is applied to a fixed input. But past economists have often
confused average and marginal returns, homogeneous and heterogeneous
inputs, short-run and long-run returns, and more.
The law of diminishing returns is rooted in the work of the 18th century
French physiocrat Anne Robert Jacques Turgot. Turgot (1767 [1914], p. 644)
stated that it can never be imagined that a doubling of expenditure on
agriculture will double the product:

The earth's fertility resembles a spring that is being pressed downwards

by the addition of successive weights. If the weight is small and the spring
is not very flexible, the first attempts will have no results. But when the
weight is enough to overcome the first resistance then it will give to
the pressure. After yielding a certain amount it will again begin to resist
the extra force put upon it, and weights that formerly would have caused
a depression of an inch will now scarcely move it by a hair's breadth. And
so the effect of additional weights will gradually diminish.

Turgot "defined" the law in terms of monetary expenditures and proportions,

not inputs and marginal output. But to his credit, he clearly envisioned
increasing returns preceding diminishing returns, an idea not formalized until
more than a century later.
Although Adam Smith visited with Turgot on the continent, he did not
incorporate the notion of diminishing returns in his own work. But within a
three-week period in 1815, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Edward West, and
Robert Torrens independently published tracts in which they developed the
law of diminishing returns and applied it to land rent. Each contribution was
related to investigations by committees of Parliament on why grain prices had
recently plummeted in England. All four authors concluded that prices had
risen during the Napoleonic Wars because the disruption of international trade
had led farmers to extend cultivation to less fertile and less accessible English
land. Thus, the recent decline in prices had resulted from the end of the Wars
and the restoration of grain imports.
Ricardo modestly credited Malthus and West for the discovery of the law of
diminishing returns, but Ricardo developed the idea most thoroughly. Never-
theless, Ricardo's statement of the law was imprecise and mixed with the idea of
heterogeneity of scarce resources.
According to Ricardo, rent arises at both the extensive and intensive
margins of cultivation (Ricardo, pp. 70–73). In examining the extensive mar-
gin, Ricardo held capital and labor inputs per unit of land constant and added
 Stanley L. Brue 187

successive units of land. He pointed out that, as land of reduced quality is

cultivated, the per unit yield of land falls. Strictly interpreted, this view of
diminishing returns is based on lower-quality units of heterogeneous land, not
on a rising amount of a variable homogeneous input applied to a fixed input.
But when Ricardo assessed rent measured at the intensive margin of
cultivation, he came closest to defining the modern concept of diminishing
returns as it applies to agriculture. Ricardo noted (p. 71): "It often, and indeed
commonly happens, that before ... the inferior lands are cultivated, capital can
be employed more productively on those lands which are already in cultivation."
Doubling of the original capital employed on that homogeneous land will not
double the produce, said Ricardo, but it may increase the yield. However, this
language implies a diminishing average product. Of course, diminishing
marginal returns can be present over a range of output even when average
product is rising.
In addition to applying the law of diminishing returns to grain prices,
Malthus used this law to support his notion that the food supply could only
grow arithmetically. For example, in the sixth edition of his An Essay on the
Principle of Population (1798 [1826], p. 4), he wrote: "When acre has been added
to acre till all the fertile land is occupied, the yearly increase of food must
depend upon the melioration of the land already in possession. This is a fund
which, from the nature of all soils, instead of increasing, must be gradually
diminishing." Nevertheless, as stated by Mark Blaug (1985, p. 70), Malthus
"showed a decided preference for a direct appeal to the reader's intuition at
the expense of a careful formulation of the law."1
The law of diminishing returns was discussed by several other leading
economists through the early 19th century, perhaps most memorably by Nas-
sau Senior, the first professor of political economy at Oxford, who listed the law
of diminishing returns in agriculture as one of his famous "four propositions"
(Senior, 1836 [1951], p. 26). But an explicit exposition of diminishing returns,
distinguishing between the average and marginal products of a variable homo-
geneous input, had to await Francis Edgeworth and John Bates Clark.
In 1911 Edgeworth constructed a hypothetical table in which he assumed
land was a fixed input (Edgeworth, 1911, p. 355). The first two columns of the
table related various levels of the "labor/tools" input with corresponding levels
of total crops. In the third column, Edgeworth derived the marginal product of
the variable input; in the fourth, the average product of the variable input.
Thus, the values of the table demonstrated the relationships between total,
marginal, and average product. Like his predecessors, Edgeworth drew his
example from agriculture, not manufacturing. Nevertheless, he asserted that
the idea was applicable in all industries.

1
In fact, Stigler (1965, p. 166) contends that Malthus was willing to deny diminishing returns
(ambiguously defined) when it was convenient. For example, in arguing for import duties on corn,
Malthus asserted that diminishing returns had not occurred in the 20 years before 1814.
188 Journal of Economic Perspectives

John Bates Clark generalized the law of diminishing returns to all factors
of production. In a paper at the third annual meeting of the American
Economic Association in 1888, he presented a theory of distribution based
squarely on the modern version of the law of diminishing marginal returns. His
underlying assumption was that all other factors and technology remain un-
changed while one homogeneous factor is varied. Thus, if capital, land, and
entrepreneurship are kept constant while units of labor are added, the marginal
and average products of labor will eventually fall, although total output may for
a time continue to rise. Clark clarified that diminishing returns do not result
from declines in the quality of the labor input as more labor is added; all such
units are homogeneous and thus interchangeable.2
Clark (1899 [1956], p. 201) used his modern formulation of the law to
develop his marginal productivity theory of distribution. The law of diminish-
ing returns thereafter became the central explanation for downward-sloping
short-run resource demand curves. Jacob Viner (1931 [1958], pp. 50–78) and
others then developed the contemporary graphical link between the law of
diminishing marginal returns and the firm's marginal cost curves and short-run
product supply curves. Since then, the law of diminishing returns has become
the modern centerpiece for explaining upward-sloping product supply curves.

Weak Proofs, Lack of Empirical Verification

In two 1936 articles, the mathematician Karl Menger, son of Austrian

economist Carl Menger, criticized existing a priori "proofs" of the law of
diminishing returns as being either special cases or based on poor logic
(Menger, 1936 [1954], p. 442). George Stigler repeated this point in 1941. For
example, he showed that Philip Wicksteed's "proof" of the law of diminishing
returns depended on a linearly homogeneous production function (Stigler,
1941, p. 49). With increasing returns to scale, there may or may not be
diminishing returns to a specific resource.
As another example, Stigler (1941, p. 207) analyzed Böhm-Bawerk's
"proof" of the law of diminishing returns, stating:

Letting H (Hektar) represent one unit of land, K (Kosten) one unit of

capital-and-labor, and P, product, and assuming 1H + 100K = 100P,
then under [Böhm-Bawerk's] formulation of the law, 1H + 200K < 200P.
2
Given this clear understanding of the idea, it is a bit surprising that Clark did not consistently state
the law of diminishing returns. In several places he expressed the law in terms of averages and
proportions rather than in its modern marginal form (Clark, 1899 [1956] pp. 165, 192, 208, 280,
300–301; Stigler, 1941, p. 301). Also, in his early writing Clark did not allow for increasing returns
in the early stages of the short-run production function. In fact, he weakly defended his assumption
of immediately occurring diminishing returns when it was challenged by Francis Walker (Stigler,
1941, p. 300).
 Retrospectives: The Law of Diminishing Returns 189

Since 1H + 200K < 200P, then 2(1/2H + 100K) < 200P or 1/2H +
100K < 100P. Therefore the internal implication of the law is that more
can be produced by one unit of land plus 100 units of capital and labor
than half a unit of land plus 100 units of capital and labor, and this law is
held to be "a self evident truth bordering on a truism." The conclusion is
true, of course, but the "proof" depends on the assumption of diminish-
ing returns.

Along with circular and special-case proofs, none of the economists men-
tioned here marshalled strong empirical evidence to validate their propositions.
Instead they stated the law as an axiom, offered specific examples, or referred
to hypothetical data to demonstrate their point. For example, even though
considerable adverse evidence emerged in the 1830s and 1840s to challenge
the implications of Ricardo's formulation of the law of diminishing returns in
agriculture, the idea persisted (Blaug, 1956, 41–58).3
Menger (1936 [1954]) severely criticized the axiomatic acceptance of the
law of diminishing returns, arguing that the crucial issue for economics is the
empirical question of whether or not the laws of returns are true or false. His
call for direct empirical verification of the law—and through extension, the
rising short-run marginal cost curve—remains valid.4
In his 1949 book Manufacturing Business, Andrews (pp. 82–111) introduced
another complication relating to the law of diminishing returns and its applica-
tions. He argued that manufacturing firms maintain excess capacity so that they
do not lose present customers in times of unexpected demand, have the
capacity to cover for breakdowns of machinery, and take advantage of opportu-
nities to capture new customers in a growing market.5 When excess capacity
exists, the law of diminishing returns may have little relevance for cost curves.
Firms can change short-run output simply by varying the hours of employment
of the "fixed" plant proportionally with the variable inputs. The ratios of the
inputs employed need not change and marginal cost need not rise. This is not
to dispute the short-run law of diminishing returns as contemporarily defined;
rather, it challenges the relevancy of the fixed factor assumption to production
theory.

Alternative Explanations

Alternative rationales have been offered for principles which economists

today derive from the law of diminishing returns. These purported
3
For a counterview, see de Marchi (1970, pp. 257–76).
4
There were some early attempts to verify the law of diminishing returns in agriculture. For
example, see E. H. Phelps Brown (1936, pp. 123–37), who summarizes studies showing that
agricultural yields eventually diminish with successive doses of fertilizer.
5
Williams (1978, p. 153) provides a fuller summary of Andrew's views.
190 Journal of Economic Perspectives

explanations raise the question of to what extent the law of diminishing returns
is necessary to economics.
For example, the idea of heterogeneous scarce resources can indeed
replace the law of diminishing returns in some applications—for example,
concave production possibilities curves. Heterogeneous resources are not per-
fectly substitutable in alternative uses; therefore producing an additional unit of
one good comes at the increasing opportunity cost of other goods. The notion
of heterogeneous scare resources also substitutes well for the law of diminishing
returns in explaining why nations rarely specialize completely in the produc-
tion of particular goods; as specialization continues, nations must increasingly
use resources that are better suited for producing other goods. In both cases,
changes in the mix of output can generate upward-sloping marginal (opportun-
ity) cost curves, and the law of diminishing returns is not fundamental
Alfred Marshall offered yet another explanation of increasing costs and
upward-sloping supply curves, which did not invoke the law of diminishing
returns. 6 Drawing on ideas expressed earlier by William S. Jevons (1871,
p. 173), Marshall (1890 [1920], p. 339) reasoned that behind monetary costs of
production lie two psychological sacrifices—the irksomeness of working and
the sacrifice of postponing consumption by saving. The worker finds additional
hours of labor each day to be more and more irksome. Hence, the longer is the
work day, other things equal, the greater is the hourly pay required to induce
workers to work the last hour. Even though the earlier hours do not represent
as great a per hour sacrifice, workers generally receive the same wage rate for
all hours worked. Of course, the higher the wage rate, other things such as
productivity equal, the higher the marginal cost of production.
Marshall also recognized that heterogeneous resources may play a role in
explaining upward-sloping supply curves. Firms find it advantageous to in-
crease their work days or employ workers of lesser quality to increase their
output when the market price of their output rises.

Reflections

Despite the imprecisions, confusions and assertions detailed here, I believe

that the modern formulation of the law of diminishing returns remains the best
explanation for upward-sloping short-run marginal cost curves and
downward-sloping short-run resource demand curves.
The idea of heterogeneous scarce resources can complement the law of
diminishing returns. But heterogeneity of resources comes into play mainly
when aggregates and large changes in quantities are involved. As a nation
specializes in one good, it eventually needs to use less-substitutable resources,
6
Marshall was well aware of the law of diminishing returns, discussing it in relationship to
agriculture (Marshall, 1890 [1920], pp. 150–72). Nevertheless, he didn't use this idea directly to
explain his upsloping product supply curves.
 Stanley L. Brue 191

causing marginal costs to rise and international specialization to be incomplete.

If enough new labor is employed in a particular industry, inferior heteroge-
neous labor eventually will be required.
But the idea of the law of diminishing returns continues to apply in the
case of economic decisions made by individual enterprises, which usually
involve such small quantities of constant-price inputs that they need not add
those of an inferior grade. Within the broad spectrum of heterogeneous land,
capital, labor, and entrepreneurial talent, there are important pools of re-
sources which are essentially interchangeable. To explain declines in marginal
product (rises in marginal cost of output) as a single competitive firm with a
fixed plant employs more of these relatively interchangeable inputs, only the
law of diminishing returns is adequate.
Economists are not myth-making when we tell our students that, if the law
of diminishing returns was not true, the world's food supply could be grown in
a flower pot. Nor are we misleading students when we say that the presence of
temporarily fixed capital has important ramifications for firms' production and
employment decisions. Without this law, economists lack satisfactory explana-
tions of short-run marginal cost curves, short-run product supply curves, and
short-run factor demand curves, as they relate to individual competitive enterprises.
And without strong short-run theories of individual enterprises, we have
neither contemporary microeconomics nor modern macroeconomics.
Similarly, the conjecture of Marshall and Jevons that costs rise with output
because workers must be paid more for longer hours is an incomplete explana-
tion for upward-sloping supply curves. There is little evidence that firms must
pay higher hourly wages to entice the marginal worker to work 40 hours a
week, compared to, say, 39 hours. Admittedly, legal requirements for time-and-
a-half pay help explain rising marginal cost curves in some instances, but they
do not explain rising marginal costs where firms expand output by adding
workers at existing pay levels.
However, it does seem clear that the history of economic theory has
produced an axiomatic acceptance of the law of diminishing returns and rising
marginal costs. More empirical investigation is needed on whether this law is
operational under conditions of excess capacity, and how it is relevant to the
burgeoning service industries. Conjectures by 19th century economists about
input and outputs in agriculture simply won't do! This is particularly true since
some historical evidence points to constant marginal costs over relevant ranges
of production (Walters, 1963, pp. 1–66). At a minimum, an up-to-date article
systematically surveying empirical evidence on the laws of production and their
basic implications—including the upward-sloping short-run supply
curve—would be helpful.

• I would like to thank Joseph Persky, Norris Peterson, and Joseph Stiglitz for their
helpful comments. Special thanks go to Timothy Taylor who helped pare the length of this
paper and greatly improve its organization.
192 Journal of Economic Perspectives
References
Andrews, P. S. W., Manufacturing Business.
London: Macmillian, 1949.
Blaug, Mark, "The Empirical Context of
Ricardian Economics," Journal of Political
Economy, February 1956, 44, 41–58.
Blaug, Mark, Economic Theory in Retrospect,
4th edition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1985.
Clark, John Bates, The Distribution of Wealth:
A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits. New
York: Kelley & Millman, [1956]. Originally
published in (1899).
de Marchi, N. B., "The Empirical Content
and Longevity of Ricardian Economics," Eco-
nomica, August 1970, 37:147, 257–76.
Edgeworth, Francis Y., "Contributions to
the Theory of Railway Rates," Economic Jour-
nal, Pt. I-IV, September 1911, 21, 346–70,
December 1991, 21, 551–71.
Jevons, William S., The Theory of Political
Economy, 5th edition. New York: Kelley and
Millman, [1957]. Originally published in
(1871).
Malthus, Thomas R., An Inquiry into the
Nature and Progress of Rent, edited by Jacob H.
Hollander. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, [1903].
Originally published in (1815).
Malthus, Thomas R., Principles of Political
Economy, 2nd edition. New York: Kelley,
[1951]. Originally published in (1820).
Malthus, Thomas R., An Essay on the Princi-
ple of Population, 6th edition. London: [1826].
Originally published in (1798).
Marshall, Alfred, Principles of Economics, 8th
edition, London: Macmillan, [1920]. Origi-
nally published in (1890).
Menger, Karl, "The Logic of the Laws of
Return: A Study in Meta-Economics." In Mor-
genstern, Oskar, ed., Economic Activity Analysis,
(1936). New York: Wiley, [1954] English trans-
lation, 442.
Phelps Brown, E. H., "The Marginal Effi-
cacy of a Productive Factor: First Report of
the Econometrica Committee on Source Mate-
rials for Quantitative Production Studies,"
Econometrica, April 1936, 4, 123–37.
Ricardo, David, Works and Correspondence.
Edited by Sraffa, Piero, 10 vols. Cambridge,
U.K.: The University Press, 1951–55.
Senior, Nassau W., An Outline of the Science
of Political Economy. New York: Kelley, [1951].
Originally published in (1836).
Stigler, George J., Essays in the History of
Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1965.
Stigler, George J., Production and Distribu-
tion Theories. New York: Macmillan, 1941.
Turgot, Anne Robert Jacques, Observation
sur un Mémoire de M. de Saint-Pérvay, ed.,
Schelle, Gustave, CEuvres de Turgot et Docu-
ments le Concernant, 2. Paris: Librairie Félix
Alcan, [1914], 644. Originally published in
(1767).
Viner, Jacob, "Cost Curves and Supply
Curves," The Long Run and Short. Glencoe:
Free Press, [1958]. Originally published in
(1931).
Walters, A. A., "Production and Cost Func-
tions: An Econometric Survey," Econometrica,
January–April 1963, 31, 1–66.
Williams, Philip L., The Emergence of the
Theory of the Firm: From Adam Smith to Alfred
Marshall. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978.
This article has been cited by:

1. Sonali Shinde, Ankur Patwardhan, Milind Watve. 2022. The ratio versus difference optimization and
its implications for optimality theory. Evolution 76:10, 2272-2280. [Crossref]
2. Cláudio Gontijo. 2022. Meio século da controvérsia do capital de Cambridge. Economia e Sociedade
31:2, 265-287. [Crossref]
3. Oz Sahin, Wade L. Hadwen, Andrew Buckwell, Chris Fleming, Dan Ware, James C.R. Smart, Allan
Dan, Brendan Mackey. 2021. Assessing how ecosystem-based adaptations to climate change influence
community wellbeing: a Vanuatu case study. Regional Environmental Change 21:4. . [Crossref]
4. Antonio Sanhueza, Isabel Espinosa, Oscar J. Mújica, Jarbas Barbosa da Silva Jr.. 2021. Leaving no one
behind: a methodology for setting health inequality reduction targets for Sustainable Development
Goal 3. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública 45, 1. [Crossref]
5. A.F. Moss, G. Parkinson, T.M. Crowley, G.M. Pesti. 2021. Alternatives to formulate laying hen diets
beyond the traditional least-cost model. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 30:1, 100137. [Crossref]
6. Patrick Gaudreau, Laurence Boileau, Benjamin J. I. Schellenberg. 2021. PEUR DE L’ÉCHEC À
L’ÉCOLE ET DANS LES SPORTS : APPORT DU MODÈLE DE L’EXCELLENCISME ET
DU PERFECTIONNISME. Revue québécoise de psychologie 42:3, 173. [Crossref]
7. Antonio Sanhueza, Isabel Espinosa, Oscar J. Mújica, Jarbas Barbosa da Silva Jr. 2020. Sin dejar a nadie
atrás: una metodología para establecer metas de reducción de desigualdad en salud del Objetivo de
Desarrollo Sostenible 3. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública 44, 1. [Crossref]
8. Qi Lu, G. Matthew Fricke, John C. Ericksen, Melanie E. Moses. 2020. Swarm Foraging Review:
Closing the Gap Between Proof and Practice. Current Robotics Reports 1:4, 215-225. [Crossref]
9. Ivo D. Dinov. 2020. Flipping the grant application review process. Studies in Higher Education 45:8,
1737-1745. [Crossref]
10. Qi Lu, G. Matthew Fricke, Takaya Tsuno, Melanie E. Moses. A Bio-Inspired Transportation Network
for Scalable Swarm Foraging 6120-6126. [Crossref]
11. Tila M. Pronk, Jaap J. A. Denissen. 2020. A Rejection Mind-Set: Choice Overload in Online Dating.
Social Psychological and Personality Science 11:3, 388-396. [Crossref]
12. Cong Li, Minglai Li. 2020. The Policy Information Gap and Resettlers’ Well-Being: Evidence
from the Anti-Poverty Relocation and Resettlement Program in China. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 17:8, 2957. [Crossref]
13. Ivo D. Dinov. 2020. Modernizing the Methods and Analytics Curricula for Health Science Doctoral
Programs. Frontiers in Public Health 8. . [Crossref]
14. Christian Gehrke. 2019. Three outstanding NOeG presentations: Morgenstern, Viner, and Menger
on the laws of costs and returns. Empirica 46:3, 519-535. [Crossref]
15. Patrick Gaudreau. 2019. On the Distinction Between Personal Standards Perfectionism and
Excellencism: A Theory Elaboration and Research Agenda. Perspectives on Psychological Science 14:2,
197-215. [Crossref]
16. Jan Kubanek. 2017. Optimal decision making and matching are tied through diminishing returns.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:32, 8499-8504. [Crossref]
17. Morten Jakobsen. 2017. Consequences of intensive use of non-financial performance measures in
Danish family farm holdings. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 14:2, 137-156.
[Crossref]
18. Omar R. Paez, Ashraf M. Genaidy. 2017. Financial assessment of health and safety programmes in
the workplace. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 18:3, 241-265. [Crossref]
19. Trevor J. Bihl, Kenneth W. Bauer, Michael A. Temple. 2016. Feature Selection for RF Fingerprinting
With Multiple Discriminant Analysis and Using ZigBee Device Emissions. IEEE Transactions on
Information Forensics and Security 11:8, 1862-1874. [Crossref]
20. Terry P Haines, Lisa O’Brien, Deb Mitchell, Kelly-Ann Bowles, Romi Haas, Donna Markham,
Samantha Plumb, Timothy Chiu, Kerry May, Kathleen Philip, David Lescai, Fiona McDermott,
Mitchell Sarkies, Marcelle Ghaly, Leonie Shaw, Genevieve Juj, Elizabeth H Skinner. 2015. Study
protocol for two randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness and safety of current weekend
allied health services and a new stakeholder-driven model for acute medical/surgical patients versus no
weekend allied health services. Trials 16:1. . [Crossref]
21. Stephen C.H. Ng, Johnny M. Rungtusanatham, Xiande Zhao, Albena Ivanova. 2015. TQM and
environmental uncertainty levels: profiles, fit, and firm performance. International Journal of Production
Research 53:14, 4266-4286. [Crossref]
22. Andrew T. Marshall, Kimberly Kirkpatrick. 2015. Relative Gains, Losses, and Reference Points in
Probabilistic Choice in Rats. PLOS ONE 10:2, e0117697. [Crossref]
23. Timothy Stirling, Dario Floreano. Energy-Time Efficiency in Aerial Swarm Deployment 5-18.
[Crossref]
24. Matthias Koch. 2013. The Cobb-Douglas Function: Simple Derivations and How Students Might
Accept Strange Dimensional-Properties. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
25. Balbir S. Sihag. 2009. Kautilya: a forerunner of neoclassical price theory. Humanomics 25:1, 37-54.
[Crossref]
26. Avi Rosenfeld, Gal A. Kaminka, Sarit Kraus, Onn Shehory. 2008. A study of mechanisms for
improving robotic group performance. Artificial Intelligence 172:6-7, 633-655. [Crossref]
27. Dale B. Truett, Lila J. Truett. 2006. Production Function Geometry With "Knightian" Total Product.
The Journal of Economic Education 37:3, 348-358. [Crossref]
28. Laurens Cherchye, Timo Kuosmanen, Thierry Post. 2001. Alternative treatments of congestion in
DEA: A rejoinder to Cooper, Gu, and Li. European Journal of Operational Research 132:1, 75-80.
[Crossref]
29. Avi Rosenfeld, Gal A Kaminka, Sarit Kraus. A Study of Scalability Properties in Robotic Teams 27-51.
[Crossref]