The theory of the firm:
Cost minimization
Lectures in Microeconomic Theory
Fall 2010, Part 4
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
1
Cost minimization — Motivation

An alternative wayy to consider the behavior of a
profit-maximizing firm that takes output and
factor prices as given.

A way to analyze the behavior of a profitmaximizing firm that takes factor prices as
given, but can influence output prices.
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
2
1
Cost minimization
Assume price-taking behavior in factor markets.
C
Cost
f
function
i : c ( w ,y )  min
i wx
x
such that f ( x)  y
Short - run cost function : c ( w ,y , x f )  min wx
x
such that f ( x)  y and x  ( x v , x f )
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
3
Conditions for cost minimization
Cost function : c ( w ,y )  min wx such that f ( x)  y
x
f ( x  )
 0 for i  1,  , n
First order conditions : wi  
xi x
2
f ( x  )

wi
xi
f (x )  y
 f ( x )
wj
x
j
Problems with
first-order
approach:
07.07.2010



Differentiability?
Interior solution?
Global minimum?
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
x1
4
2
Conditional factor demand function
x  ( w , y )  arg min wx s.t. f ( x)  y x2
x

Properties: (Comp. statics)
xi (tw , y )  xi ( w , y )
xi
 0 for i  1,  , n
wi

xi x j

for i  1,  , n
w j wi
x1
Cost function for the Cobb-Douglas tech.
P d ti function
Production
f ti : f ( x1 , x2 )  A
Ax1a x2b
x1 , x 2
w1  a
y
x1
w2  b
y
x2
Ax x  y
a
1
b
2
w1 a x2

w2 b x1
b
 aw2  ab a1b
 bw  y
 1a
a b
1
 a 1b  bw1 
*
a b
x2 ( w1 , w2 , y )  A 
 y
 aw2 
x1* ( w1 , w2 , y )  A
c ( w1 , w2 , y )  A
07.07.2010
a b 1
Cost fn. : c ( w , y )  min w1 x1  w2 x2 s.t. Ax1a x2b  y
 a1 b
 a 1b
 
a
b
b
a b

a 1  1  a b
 y b A b x1 b
b
  ba ab w1ab w2ab y ab
a
a
b
1
5
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
What happens when a factor price increases?
w x  w x
x2
w x  w x
w x  x  0
( x1 , x2 )
 w x  x  0
( x1, x2 )
( x1, x2 )
If wj  wj for all j  i , then
wi  wixi  xi  0
wi  wi implies xi  xi
07.07.2010
x1
Weak axiom of
cost minimization
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
6
3
Cost function
c(w , y )  min wx s.t. f (x)  y
x
Properties: (No assumptions about the technology needed).
Cost function: Proof of property (1)
Assume wi  wi for all inputs .
Let x be cost minimizing at ( w, y) ,
so that c (w , y )  wx and f ( x)  y
Let x be cost minimizing at ( w , y ),
so that c (w , y )  w x and f (x)  y
By cost minimizati on : c( w , y)  w x  wx
(1) Non - decreasing in w.
Cost function for the Cobb-Douglas tech.
Production function : f ( x1 , x 2 )  Ax1a x2b
Since wi  wi for all inputs , wx  wx  c( w , y)
Cost function: Proof of property (2)
Let x be cost minimizing at ( w , y ),
x1 , x 2
(2) Homogene ous off degree
d
1 in w :
w1  a
c (tw , y )  tc ( w , y ) for all t  0.
Hence, x is cost - minimizing at (tw , y ).
Cost function: Proof of property (3)
Let x be cost minimizing at ( w , y ).
Let x be cost minimizing at (w, y ) where
w  tw  (1  t )w .
By cost minimizati on :
tw x  t wx  tc( w , y)
(1  t ) wx  (1  t ) wx  (1  t ) c( w , y )
Adding these two inequalit ies together
c ( wi , w i , y )
(3) Concave in w
c( w , y )  tc ( w, y )  (1  t ) c( w , y )
y
x1
x1* ( w1 , w2 , y )  A
 a 1b
x2* ( w1 , w2 , y )  A
 a 1b
c ( w1 , w2 , y )  A
07.07.2010
g ( w )  c ( w, y )  wx 
 
a
b
b
a b
c ( wi , w i , y )
a
b
a 1b  1b  abb
y A x1
b
1
wi
Slope : xi ( wi, w i , y )
c ( wi , w i , y )
wi
wi
Assume differentiability.
Invoke concavity.
Cost function for the Cobb-Douglas tech.
Production function : f ( x1 , x2 )  Ax1a x2b
c ( w , y )
wi
a b 1
Cost fn. : c( w , y )  min w1 x1  w2 x2 s.t. Ax1a x2b  y
x1 , x 2
w1   a xy1
w2  b xy2
x1* ( w1 , w2 , y )  A
 a1b
x2* ( w1 , w2 , y )  A
 a1 b
c( w1 , w2 , y )  A
07.07.2010
a
7
c( wi, w i , y )
c ( w , y )  wx * ( w , y )
xi ( w , y ) 


  ba ab w1ab w2a b y a b
c ( wi , w i , y )
Suppose x is cost minimizing factor vec tor at (w  , y ).
g ( w  ) c ( w  , y )

 xi  0 for i  1,  , n
wi
wi
 a 1 b
 aw2  ab a1b
 y

 bw1  a
 bw  ab 1
 1  y ab
 aw2 
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
Proof of Shephard’s Lemma
Then g ( w  )  0 and
w1 a x2

w2 b x1
wi
Shephard’s Lemma
Define the function
Ax1a x2b  y
Slope : xi ( wi, w i , y )
c ( wi, w i , y )
(4) Continuous in w
w2  b xy2
b
so that c ( w , y )  wx and f ( x )  y
However, if c ( w , y )  wx  w x, then twx  t w x
Let x be cost minimizing at ( w , y ).
a b 1
Cost fn. : c (w , y )  min w1 x1  w2 x2 s.t. Ax1a x2b  y
Hence : c ( w , y )  c ( w , y )
 a 1b
Ax1a x2b  y
w1 a x2

w2 b x1
b
a b
1
 aw2 
a b
 bw  y
 1a
 bw1  ab a1b

 y
 aw2 
 
a
b
b
a b

a b1  b1  abb
y A x1
b

  ab ab w1ab w2ab y ab
a
a
b
1
xi ( w , y )  2 c ( w , y )

0
wi
wi2
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
8
4
More on Shephard’s Lemma
c ( wi , w  i , y )
Slope : xi ( wi, w  i , y )
c ( wi , w i , y )
c ( wi, w i , y )
Assume differentiability.
wi
xi ( w , y ) 
c ( w , y )
wi
wi
Invoke Young’s theorem.

xi ( w , y )  2 c ( w , y )  2 c ( w , y ) x j ( w , y )



wi
w j
w j wi
wi w j
07.07.2010
9
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
An identity
x( p, w )  x  ( w , y ( p, w ))
xi ( p, w ) xi ( w , y ( p, w )) y ( p, w )

p
y
p
xi ( p, w )
x ( w , y ( p, w ))
p
Hence :

y ( p, w )
y
p

i
xi ( p, w ) xi ( w , y ( p, w )) xi ( w , y ( p, w )) y ( p, w )


w j
w j
y
w j
xi ( w , y ( p, w ))


w j
07.07.2010
xi ( p , w ) y ( p , w )
p
w j
y ( p , w )
p
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
Puu’s equation
10
5
Applying Puu’s equation

Profit maximizing response greater than cost
minimizing response when a factor price changes?

i
xi ( p, w ) x ( w , y ( p, w ))


w j
w j
 2 ( p , w )  2 ( p , w )
w j p
pwi
by Hotelling’s
Lemma.
p
The response if the factor’s own price changes (i  j):
 2 ( p , w )
2
, 2y ( p, w )) y ( p, w )
xi ( p, w ) xi ( w , y ( p, w ))  2x(ip(,w
w ) 
 

xi (pw, w
) xi ( w , yw
( pj , w ))  pwi y xi ( w , y(wp,j w ))
j

  2 ( p , w ) 
wi
wi
wi
xi ( p2, w ) y ( p , w )

p
x ( w , y ( p, w ))
p
w
 i 2 ( p , w )  2 ( p , w) y ( p,w2)( pj , w )
since pwiw j wi p and p 2  0.
p
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
11
Long-run and short-run cost functions
In the long run : c ( w , y )  wx  ( w , y )
Long - run total cost  LTC  c ( w , y )
Long - run average cost  LAC  c(w , y ) / y
Long - run marginal cost  LMC  c (w , y ) / y
x  ( x v , x f ) and w  ( w v , w f )
In the short run : c ( w , y , x f )  w v x v ( w , y, x f )  w f x f
Connection between long - run and short - run costs :
c ( w , y )  w v x v ( w , y )  w f x f ( w , y )  c( w , y, x f ( w , y ))
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
12
6
More on short-run cost functions
Short - run total cost  STC  c ( w , y , x f )
Short - run average cost  SAC  c ( w , y , x f ) / y
Short - run variable cost  SVC  w v x v ( w , y , x f )
Short - run average var. cost  SAVC  w v x v ( w , y , x f ) / y
Short-run Cobb-Douglas cost function
Production function : f ( x1 , k )  x1a k 1a
Short - run cost fn. : c (w , y, k )  min w1 x1  w2 k s.t. x1a k 1a  y
x1 , x2
x1* ( w1 , w2 , y , k )   yk a 1 a
1
c( w1 , w2 , y, k )  w1  yk a 1 a  w2 k
1

w 
Short - run average cost  w1
Short - run average variable cost
Short - run average fixed cost 
Short - run marginal cost 
y
k
y
1 k
1 a
a
1 a
a
 wy2 k
Fixed cost  FC  w f x f
w2 k
y
w1
a

y
k
1 a
a
Short - run fixed average cost  SAFC  w f x f / y
Short - run marginal cost  SMC  c ( w , y , x f ) / y
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
13
Relationship between AC and MC
dAC d  c ( y )  1 
c( y )  1

   c( y ) 
  MC  AC 

dy
dy  y  y 
y  y
p
MC
AC is decreasing
if and only if
MC < AC.
AC
y
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
14
7
Geometry of costs I
y TC
p
TC
MC
AC
Y
x
y
y TC
y
p
TC
AC
MC
Y
y
x
07.07.2010
y
15
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
Geometry of costs II
y TC
p
TC
MC
Y
AC
Long-run
x
y
y TC
y
p
TC
MC
AC
Y
Short-run
x
y
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
y
16
8
Geometry of costs III
y TC
TC
p
MC
AC
Y
x
y
y
p
y TC
TC
AC
MC
Y
x
y
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
y
17
Cost function: Proof of property (1)
Assume wi  wi for all inputs .
Let x be cost minimizing at ( w , y ),
so that c ( w , y )  wx and f ( x)  y
Let x be cost minimizing at ( w , y ),
so that c( w , y )  w x and f ( x)  y
Byy cost minimizati on : c( w , y )  w x  w x
Since wi  wi for all inputs , w x  wx  c ( w , y )
Hence : c( w , y )  c( w , y )
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
18
9
Cost function: Proof of property (2)
Let x be cost minimizing at ( w , y ),
so that c( w , y )  wx and f ( x)  y
However, if c ( w , y )  wx  w x, then twx  tw x
Hence, x is cost - minimizing at (tw , y ).
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
19
Cost function: Proof of property (3)
Let x be cost minimizing at ( w , y ).
Let x be cost minimizing at ( w , y ).
Let x be cost minimizing at ( w , y ) where
w   tw  (1  t ) w .
By cost minimizati on :
tw x  twx  tc ( w , y )
(1  t ) w x  (1  t ) w x  (1  t )c ( w , y )
Adding these two inequalit ies together
c ( w , y )  tc ( w , y )  (1  t )c ( w , y )
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
20
10
Proof of Shephard’s Lemma
Suppose x  is cost minimizing factor vec tor at ( w  , y ).
Define the function
g ( w )  c ( w , y )  wx 
Then g ( w  )  0 and
g ( w  ) c( w  , y )

 xi  0 for i  1,  , n
wi
wi
07.07.2010
G.B. Asheim, ECON4230-35, #4
21
11