7

I have the following CES nested in a Cobb-Douglas production function:

$$y(i)=[l(i)^{\frac{\epsilon - 1}{\epsilon}} +\alpha(i)(\tilde{\gamma}x(i))^{\frac{\epsilon - 1}{\epsilon}}]^{\frac{\epsilon \beta}{\epsilon-1}}h(i)^{1-\beta}$$

$\beta \in (0,1)$, $\tilde{\gamma}$ is a productivity parameter, and $\epsilon$>1 is the EOS between low-skilled workers,$l(i)$, and machines $x(i)$. Also, $\alpha(i)$ is an indicator function taking value one if the product $i$ is automated and zero otherwise. Mathematically, $\alpha(i) \in \{0,1\}$. Finally, $h(i)$ are high-skilled workers.

The unit cost function of product $y(i)$ is:

$$c= \beta^{-\beta}(1-\beta)^{-(1-\beta)}(w_L^{1-\epsilon}+\gamma \alpha(i))^{\frac{\beta}{1-\epsilon}}w_H^{1-\beta}$$

where $w_L$ is the unit cost of the input $l(i)$, one is the unit cost of input $x(i)$ and $w_H$ is the unit cost of input $h(i)$. Finally $\gamma \equiv \tilde{\gamma^\epsilon}$

Could you tell me how to derive this unit cost function?

Alecos Papadopoulos
  • 33,814
  • 1
  • 48
  • 116
John M.
  • 265
  • 1
  • 10
  • 1
    In this post, you can see the steps that are generally applicable, https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/5273/61 – Alecos Papadopoulos Sep 12 '22 at 09:30
  • 1
    @John M. you can try to use the indicator function, first suppose $\alpha=0$ then find $c$ for that case, and then find $c$ for $\alpha=1$, the algebra is hellish for this case as I'm trying to do it myself. Will upload a solution if I am able to do it myself. Also, for the three input case you can try to solve the cost minimization problem in stages – mynameparv May 01 '23 at 05:54
  • @mynameparv can you show me your attempt? – John M. May 01 '23 at 21:14
  • I've written an answer but it's still in complete, the case for $\alpha=1$ is not at all simple. Do you want me to post the incomplete solution and you try the rest yourself? – mynameparv May 02 '23 at 04:05
  • @John M. The solution contains enough information and explanation so that you may attempt the problem on your own and I will get to completing it once I'm a bit more free. Let me know if I should post that attempt or not – mynameparv May 02 '23 at 04:19
  • @mynameparv Yes pls, at least I can upvote your answer – John M. May 02 '23 at 09:52
  • @JohnM. check it and give it a try yourself to see if you can complete the solution yourself. I'll get to it after a few weeks as I'm really busy right now – mynameparv May 02 '23 at 11:21
  • @AlecosPapadopoulos I've seen your answer at the link you posted and it is great, but it seems that does not apply for my case. Even if you don't go into the algebra, do you mind if you can spell out all the steps for this special case, i.e. CES nested in a Cobb-Douglas. OF course, I'll pick the best answer for the bounty – John M. May 02 '23 at 16:27
  • @JohnM. Up to an including eq. (6) in my post, the steps are applicable to an homogeneous production function- and your production function is homogeneous of degree 1 in your three inputs (my "h" is equal to 1 in your case), and irrespective of whether the alpha indicator function is equal to zero or one. Have you gotten there? After that, you need to differentiate your production function to obtain the three marginal products. – Alecos Papadopoulos May 03 '23 at 02:46
  • @AlecosPapadopoulos I've tried but it didn't work. Is there any source where I can read something that helps? – John M. May 04 '23 at 20:21

2 Answers2

4

I'm going to provide the steps to follow for solving this optimization problem:

The Cost Function for $y(i)$ is given by:

\begin{equation*} C(w_H,w_L,y(i))= w_H h(i)^{\ast} + w_L l(i)^{\ast} + x(i)^{\ast} \label{cost} \end{equation*}

The production function is homogenous of degree 1, that is,it exhibits constant return to scale. This makes average cost equal to the marginal cost.

For convenience, write the production function as

\begin{equation} y(i)=z(i)^{\beta}h^{1-\beta} , \text{$~~~$ with $~~$} z(i) \equiv [l(i)^{\frac{\epsilon -1}{\epsilon}} + (\alpha(i) \tilde{\gamma})^{\frac{\epsilon -1}{\epsilon}}]^{\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon -1}} \end{equation} The cost function reads as

\begin{equation} C(w_H,w_z,y(i))= w_H h(i)^{\ast} + w_z z(i)^{\ast} \label{cost2} \end{equation}

In the first stage, you minimize:

\begin{equation} \begin{array}{rrclcl} min ~~~~~{ w_H h(i) + w_z z(i)}\\ \textrm{s.t.} & z(i)^{\beta}h^{1-\beta} \ge y(i) \end{array} \end{equation}

Solving this cost minimization problem you get $h(i)^{\ast},z(i)^{\ast}$. Then, plug these conditional factor input demands in the objective function. As a result, you get the cost function (which depends upon $w_H,w_Z,y(i))$.

In the second stage, you minimize

\begin{equation} \begin{array}{rrclcl} min ~~~~~{ w_L l(i) + x(i)}\\ \textrm{s.t.} & \left[ l(i)^{\frac{\epsilon -1}{\epsilon}} +\alpha(i)(\tilde{\gamma}x(i))^{\frac{\epsilon -1}{\epsilon}} \right]^{\frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon -1}} = z(i) \end{array} \end{equation}

Solving this cost minimization problem, you find $x(i)^{\ast},l(i)^{\ast}, \lambda^{\ast}$

Now, since the composite good, $z(i)$, is priced at its marginal cost, you get $w_z=\lambda^{\ast}$. Using this result into the cost function coming from the first stage, you are done, you have just found the total cost function. Divide it by $y(i)$, and you get the unit cost of production

Tony
  • 1,262
  • 2
  • 10
2

Since we are interested in finding the unit cost let the output needed to be produced be equal to 1 i.e., $y(i)\overset{set}=1$ We need to solve: $$\begin{align} \min_{l(i),x(i),h(i)\geq0} \quad & w_Ll(i)+x(i)+w_{H}h(i)\\ \textrm{s.t.} \quad & [l(i)^{\frac{\epsilon - 1}{\epsilon}} +\alpha(i)(\tilde{\gamma}x(i))^{\frac{\epsilon - 1}{\epsilon}}]^{\frac{\epsilon \beta}{\epsilon-1}}h(i)^{1-\beta}=1\\ \textrm{and} \quad & \alpha(i)=\begin{cases}1 & \text{if } i\text{ is automated}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}\end{cases} \end{align}$$

I am going to use the indicator function and solve for two different cases and then try to combine them using the indicator.

Case 1: If $i$ is not automated i.e., $ \alpha(i)=0$

If $i$ is not automated, then the cost minimization problem becomes a standard one with a Cobb-Douglas  production function $$\begin{align} \min_{l,x,h\geq 0} \quad & w_Ll+x+w_{H}h\\ \textrm{s.t.} \quad & l^{\beta}h^{1-\beta}=1\\ \end{align}$$

This is just a standard cost minimization problem with a cobb-douglas production function, so I think you can verify yourself that the above problem  gives: $l(i)=\left(\frac{w_H\beta}{w_L(1-\beta)}\right)^{1-\beta}, \quad x(i)=0, \quad h(i)= \left(\frac{w_L(1-\beta)}{w_{H} \beta}\right)^{\beta}$

therefore, $$\begin{eqnarray} & c=w_L^\beta\left(\frac{w_H\beta}{1-\beta}\right)^{1-\beta}+w_H^{1-\beta}\left(\frac{w_L(1-\beta)}{\beta}\right)^{\beta}\\\\ \implies & {\boxed{c=w_L^\beta w_H^{1-\beta} \beta^{-\beta}(1-\beta)^{\beta-1}}}\tag{a} \end{eqnarray}$$

Case 2: If $i$ is automated $$\begin{align} \min_{l,x,h\geq 0} \quad & w_Ll+x+w_{H}h\\ \textrm{s.t.} \quad & [l^{\frac{\epsilon - 1}{\epsilon}} +(\tilde{\gamma}x)^{\frac{\epsilon - 1}{\epsilon}}]^{\frac{\epsilon \beta}{\epsilon-1}}h^{1-\beta}=1\\ \end{align}$$

let us write the above problem as: $$\begin{align} {\min_{0\leq h \leq 1} \underbrace{\begin{pmatrix} \underset{l,x}{\min} \quad & w_Ll+w_Hh+x \\ \textrm{s.t.} \quad & [l^{\frac{\epsilon - 1}{\epsilon}} +(\tilde{\gamma}x)^{\frac{\epsilon - 1}{\epsilon}}]^{\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon-1}}=h^\frac{\beta -1}{\beta} \end{pmatrix}}_{\text{auxiliary problem}}} \tag{1} \end{align}$$

We can solve the above problem in two stages:

Stage 1: first solve the auxiliary problem for $l$ and $x$ holding $h$ fixed

Stage 2: Substitute the solutions of the auxiliary problem$-$ $l(h)$ and $x(h)$ $-$ into $(1)$ and solve the problem to find optimal $h$

Stage 1: we need to solve: $$\begin{align} \underset{l,x}{\min} \quad & w_Ll+w_Hh+x \\ \textrm{s.t.} \quad & [l^{\frac{\epsilon - 1}{\epsilon}} +(\tilde{\gamma}x)^{\frac{\epsilon - 1}{\epsilon}}]^{\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon-1}}=h^\frac{\beta -1}{\beta}\\ \text{gives:} \quad & {\left.\begin{matrix} l(h)=\frac{h^\frac{\beta -1}{\beta}}{[1+(w_L\tilde \gamma)^{\epsilon -1}]^\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon-1}} \\ x(h)=\frac{w_L^\epsilon \tilde{\gamma}^{\epsilon -1} h^\frac{\beta -1}{\beta}}{[1+(w_L\tilde \gamma)^{\epsilon -1}]^\frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon-1}} \end{matrix}\right\}}\tag{2} \end{align}$$

Because we are given that $\epsilon>1$, You can verify that isoquants will be convex. Thus, I was able to solve the above by equating ratios of MP to MC for $l$ and $x$ and substituting them into the constraint.

Stage 2: substituting $(2)$ in $(1)$ we get the final problem solving which will give optimal $h$ $$\begin{align} \min_{0\leq h\leq 1} \quad & w_Hh+w_L[1+(w_L\tilde \gamma)^{\epsilon -1}]^\frac{1}{1-\epsilon} h^\frac{\beta -1}{\beta}\tag{3} \end{align}$$

the above objective is convex in $h \; \because \beta<1$, so assuming the parametric condition gives us a stationary point that lies in the interval $(0,1)$ we can solve for the optimal h in the above problem and substitute it in the problem itself to get $c$ for $\alpha=1$:

$$h^*=\left(\frac{(1-\beta)w_L[1+(w_L\tilde \gamma)^{\epsilon -1}]^\frac{1}{1-\epsilon}}{w_H\beta}\right)^\beta$$

substituting $h$ in $(3)$ give us: $$\boxed{c=w_H^{1-\beta}(1-\beta)^{\beta-1}\beta^{-\beta}\left[w_L^{1-\epsilon}+\tilde \gamma^{\epsilon-1}\right]^\frac{\beta}{1-\epsilon}}\tag{b}$$

we can combine the solutions to case 1 and case 2 , i.e., $(a)$ and $(b)$ Therefore, we have

$c=\begin{cases} w_H^{1-\beta} \beta^{-\beta}(1-\beta)^{\beta-1}w_L^\beta & \text{if } \alpha(i)=0 \\ w_H^{1-\beta}(1-\beta)^{\beta-1}\beta^{-\beta}\left[w_L^{1-\epsilon}+\tilde \gamma^{\epsilon-1}\right]^\frac{\beta}{1-\epsilon} & \text{if } \alpha(i)=1 \end{cases}$

using $\alpha(i)$, the above can also be written as: $$\boxed{c=w_H^{1-\beta}\beta^{-\beta}(1-\beta)^{\beta-1}\left(w_L^{1-\epsilon}+\tilde \gamma^{\epsilon-1} \alpha(i) \right)^\frac{\beta}{1-\epsilon}}$$

mynameparv
  • 615
  • 2
  • 13
  • Thanks so much, I'm going to check the computations in a while and see if I can get useful hints to fully answer my question. – John M. May 02 '23 at 11:33
  • consider rewarding me the bounty if you do – mynameparv May 02 '23 at 12:15
  • 1
    For sure, don't you worry about that – John M. May 02 '23 at 12:20
  • How do you get $h$? I mean $h$ just after $(3)$ – John M. May 02 '23 at 15:29
  • I think that one problem with your procedure is that you omitted $\alpha(i)$ into the constraint on $(2)$ – John M. May 02 '23 at 16:21
  • You get $h$ after solving the optimization problem in $(3)$ and no I haven't omitted $\alpha$ at all. I have used its property as an indicator and substituted its value. Don't worry I'll update in a few days and make it more comprehensive if possible. – mynameparv May 03 '23 at 04:57
  • @JohnM. Hi, sorry was busy before and couldn't find the time to complete the answer, I've edited the previous mistakes and tried to make the procedure more comprehensible for you. According to your question $\gamma=\tilde\gamma^{epsilon}$ but I think it should $\gamma=\tilde\gamma^{epsilon-1}$ instead. So, it could be that I am getting the exponent wrong due to some error as the algebra is quite tedious or that I've done it right and there is an issue in the problem itself. I can also share my workings with you as I did them on a tablet – mynameparv May 19 '23 at 14:40