Replication alone does not yield a smooth constant-returns-to-scale production function as those usually assumed in the literature. However, such a function arises endogenously with replication, driven by profit-maximization, if the efficiency of the underlying production process varies with the intensity it is operated at, and reaches a maximum at a stationary point. The result applies when the number of production processes must be discrete, thus overcoming the so-called integer problem. When inputs are non-rival, public goods or generated by externalities, replication can lead to increasing or decreasing returns to scale.
Arrow, K. J. 1962. “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing.” Review of Economic Studies29:155–73. Search in Google Scholar
Cassels, J. M. 1936. “On the Law of Variable Proportions.” In Explorations in Economics, Notes and Essays Contributed in Honor of Frank Taussig, edited by F. W.Taussig. New York and London: McGraw-Hill. Search in Google Scholar
Corless, R. M., G. H.Gonnet, D. E. G.Hare, D. J.Jeffrey, and D. E.Knuth. 1996. “On the Lambert W Function.” Advances in Computational Mathematics5:329–59. Search in Google Scholar
Edgeworth, F. Y. 1911. “Contributions to the Theory of Railway Rates.” Economic Journal21:346–71 and 551–71. Search in Google Scholar
Frisch, R. 1964. Theory of Production. Dordrecht: Springer. Search in Google Scholar
Hicks, J. 1939. Value and Capital: An Inquiry Into Some Fundamental Principles of Economic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Search in Google Scholar
Jensen, C. 2013. “An Endogenously Derived AK-Model of Economic Growth.” MPRA Working Paper No. 45639. Search in Google Scholar
Jones, C. I. 1999. “Growth: With or Without Scale Effects?” American Economic Review89:139–44. Search in Google Scholar
Jones, C. I. 2005. “Growth and Ideas.” In Handbook of Economic Growth, edited by A.Aghion and S.Durlauf. North Holland, Amsterdam. Search in Google Scholar
Kaldor, N. 1934. “The Equilibrium of the Firm.” Economic Journal44:60–76. Search in Google Scholar
Koopmans, T. C. 1957. Three Essays on the State of Economic Science. New York: McGraw-Hill. Search in Google Scholar
Lerner, A. P. 1944. The Economics of Control: Principles of Welfare Economics. New York: Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar
Lucas, R. E. 1988. “On the Mechanics of Economic Development.” Journal of Monetary Economics22:3–42. Search in Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1890. Principles of Economics: An Introductory Volume. London: Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar
Peretto, P. F., and J. J.Seater. 2013. “Factor-Eliminating Technical Change.” Journal of Monetary Economics60:459–73. Search in Google Scholar
Romer, P. M. 1986. “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth.” Journal of Political Economy94:1002–37. Search in Google Scholar
Romer, P. M. 1990. “Endogenous Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy90:S71–102. Search in Google Scholar
Romer, P. M. 1994. “The Origins of Endogenous Growth.” Journal of Economic Perspectives8:3–22. Search in Google Scholar
Scarf, H. E. 1981. “Production Sets with Indivisibilities-Part I: Generalities.” Econometrica49:1–32. Search in Google Scholar
Scarf, H. E. 1994. “The Allocation of Resources in the Presence of Indivisibilities.” Journal of Economic Perspectives8:111–28. Search in Google Scholar
Shell, K. 1966. “Toward a Theory of Inventive Activity and Capital Accumulation.” American Economic Review56:62–68. Search in Google Scholar
Solow, R. M. 1956. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics70:65–94. Search in Google Scholar
Sydsæter, K., A.Strøm, and P.Berck. 2005. Economists’ Mathematical Manual. New York: Springer Verlag. Search in Google Scholar
Wicksell, K. 1934. Lectures on Political Economy I. London: Routledge & Sons. Search in Google Scholar
Zuleta, H. 2008. “Factor Saving Innovations and Factor Income Shares.” Review of Economic Dynamics11:836–51. Search in Google Scholar
That the managerial input can generate decreasing returns to scale is an old argument (Marshall 1890;Kaldor 1934;Hicks 1939). The idea is that even when management increases proportionally with all other inputs, it becomes overstretched due to the more than proportional complexity of the organization. The same applies for communication.
As an example let with , so that f is strictly concave. Note that while , becomes infinitely large as for any total input . Intuitively, when and f is strictly concave, its efficiency is maximized when .
H can have multiple global maxima with respect to N.
The two derivatives  and  are also equal if , but if this held for all and , for all , since is homogeneous of degree one, and production would always be zero.
While must satisfy , it does not need to be a global maximum of H, any stationary point will make the production function with a discrete number of replications converge toward constant returns to scale.
The Lambert W function, also called the Omega function, or the product logarithm, is the inverse relation of the function . It has no representation in terms of elementary functions, but can be approximated numerically, as discussed in Corless et al. (1996). It is a multivalued relation, and thus not really a function, with an upper (principal) branch denoted and a lower branch denoted . The second-order condition for maximizing total output  with respect to N reveals that we must use the lower branch, which yields a maximum, since the upper branch yields a minimum.
For , and are complex-valued.
Assuming a continuously differentiable profit function maximized at an interior point characterized by first-order conditions, we would have that for the last unit of output produced by increased input use, the marginal revenue equals the marginal cost, which is assumed to be strictly positive. However, if the unit could instead have been produced without increased input use, marginal profits would have equaled marginal revenue, and been positive, so profits cannot be maximized. Note that with discrete N, total output, and therefore profits, may not be continuously differentiable at all input levels.
This is in line with Romer (1990, 1994) and Jones’ (2005) point that perfect competition is incompatible with increasing returns to scale, though their argument relies on a continuously differentiable production function. In our setup, the result applies also to decreasing returns, since these become increasing with a large enough increase in the scale. If the returns to scale of the production function were decreasing for all levels of production, decreasing returns would be compatible with perfect competition.
For example, when , where is scalar, replication leads to constant returns to scale in . Returns to scale in are by assumption constant, so the joint returns to and are increasing.
©2014 by De Gruyter