Do profit maximisers take cold showers? Another look at protection and technical efficiency

Neil Campbell, Jeffrey Kline

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

In this paper we consider whether a 'cold shower' is possible if the firm we are analysing is a conventional neoclassical profit-maximising firm facing competitively determined prices. In the context of this analysis, the term 'cold shower' refers to a situation where the removal of a protective subsidy induces investment in a cost-reducing technology. First we show that if the investment lowers marginal cost everywhere, then our firm will never respond to the removal of the subsidy by making the investment. We then use this result to carefully construct examples where the investment does not lower marginal cost everywhere. These examples are devised to illustrate a cold shower scenario where, with no protection in place, the firm makes the investment, that would have been rejected, if the protection had have been in place.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)105-109
Number of pages2005
JournalAustralian Economic Papers
Volume44
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005

Fingerprint

Technical efficiency
Profit
Marginal cost
Investment subsidies
Costs
Scenarios
Subsidies

Cite this

@article{369e48011f4e4344bfeafef0d276d8ff,
title = "Do profit maximisers take cold showers? Another look at protection and technical efficiency",
abstract = "In this paper we consider whether a 'cold shower' is possible if the firm we are analysing is a conventional neoclassical profit-maximising firm facing competitively determined prices. In the context of this analysis, the term 'cold shower' refers to a situation where the removal of a protective subsidy induces investment in a cost-reducing technology. First we show that if the investment lowers marginal cost everywhere, then our firm will never respond to the removal of the subsidy by making the investment. We then use this result to carefully construct examples where the investment does not lower marginal cost everywhere. These examples are devised to illustrate a cold shower scenario where, with no protection in place, the firm makes the investment, that would have been rejected, if the protection had have been in place.",
author = "Neil Campbell and Jeffrey Kline",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1111/j.1467-8454.2005.00251.x",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "105--109",
journal = "Australian Economic Papers",
issn = "0004-900X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

Do profit maximisers take cold showers? Another look at protection and technical efficiency. / Campbell, Neil; Kline, Jeffrey.

In: Australian Economic Papers, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2005, p. 105-109.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do profit maximisers take cold showers? Another look at protection and technical efficiency

AU - Campbell, Neil

AU - Kline, Jeffrey

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - In this paper we consider whether a 'cold shower' is possible if the firm we are analysing is a conventional neoclassical profit-maximising firm facing competitively determined prices. In the context of this analysis, the term 'cold shower' refers to a situation where the removal of a protective subsidy induces investment in a cost-reducing technology. First we show that if the investment lowers marginal cost everywhere, then our firm will never respond to the removal of the subsidy by making the investment. We then use this result to carefully construct examples where the investment does not lower marginal cost everywhere. These examples are devised to illustrate a cold shower scenario where, with no protection in place, the firm makes the investment, that would have been rejected, if the protection had have been in place.

AB - In this paper we consider whether a 'cold shower' is possible if the firm we are analysing is a conventional neoclassical profit-maximising firm facing competitively determined prices. In the context of this analysis, the term 'cold shower' refers to a situation where the removal of a protective subsidy induces investment in a cost-reducing technology. First we show that if the investment lowers marginal cost everywhere, then our firm will never respond to the removal of the subsidy by making the investment. We then use this result to carefully construct examples where the investment does not lower marginal cost everywhere. These examples are devised to illustrate a cold shower scenario where, with no protection in place, the firm makes the investment, that would have been rejected, if the protection had have been in place.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-8454.2005.00251.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-8454.2005.00251.x

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 105

EP - 109

JO - Australian Economic Papers

JF - Australian Economic Papers

SN - 0004-900X

IS - 2

ER -