Profit Maximazation

9
CHAPTER
Profit Maximization in Perfectly

Competitive Markets
REVENUES ($ MILLIONS)
By effectively implementing our
strategies and delivering value,
we have achieved one of the
strongest growth records in
the publishing industry.
EBITA ($ MILLIONS)
EBITA (earnings before interest,
taxes, and amortization of
intangible assets) has increased
at a compound annual rate of 26%.
STOCK PRICE
(b)
How does a
firms optimal
output choice
in a perfectly
competitive
market
structure
respond to
changes in
price and
cost?
The Class A Common Stock

price has grown in value at a
compound annual rate of 27%.
Chapter Outline
9.1 The Assumptions of Perfect Competition
9.2 Profit Maximization
Application 9.1 Are American Executives Underpaid?
9.3 The Demand Curve Facing the Competitive Firm
9.4 Short-Run Profit Maximization
Short-Run Profit Maximization Using Per-Unit Curves

Application 9.2 The Importance of Thinking at the Relevant Margin
Operating at a Loss in the Short Run

9.5 The Perfectly Competitive Firms Short-Run Supply Curve
Application 9.3 The Method to Mothballing
Application 9.4 The Competitive Firms Supply Curve in the Very Short Run
Output Response to a Change in Input Prices

9.6 The Short-Run Industry Supply Curve
Price and Output Determination in the Short Run
Application 9.5 Why Electric Bills in California Increased After Deregulation
9.7 Long-Run Competitive Equilibrium
Zero Profit When Firms Cost Curves Differ?

9.8 The Long-Run Industry Supply Curve
Constant-Cost Industry
Increasing-Cost Industry
Decreasing-Cost Industry
Application 9.6 The Bidding War for MIS and Finance Professors
Comments on the Long-Run Supply Curve

9.9 When Does the Competitive Model Apply?
Learning Objectives
Outline the conditions that characterize perfect competition.
Explain why it is appropriate to assume profit maximization on the part of
firms.
Show why the fact that a competitive firm is a price taker implies that the
demand curve facing the firm is perfectly horizontal.
Explore a competitive firms optimal output choice in the short run and how
the firms short-run supply curve may be derived through this output
selection.
Delineate how the short-run industry supply curve is determined from
individual firms short-run supply curves.
Define the conditions characterizing long-run competitive equilibrium.
Understand how the long-run industry supply curve describes the relationship
between price and industry output over the long run, taking into account how
input prices may be affected by an industrys expansion/contraction.
Analyze the extent to which the competitive market model applies.
225
226 Chapter Nine Profit Maximization in Perfectly Competitive Markets
A sinputs.
we have seen, the basic determinants of cost are the prices and productivities of
But a knowledge of cost conditions alone does not explain a firms output
level. Cost curves identify only the minimum cost at which the firm can produce various
outputs.
For a firm interested in maximizing profit, cost and demand conditions jointly determine
the optimal output level. So, to complete the model of output determination, we need to
specify the demand curve confronting the firm. The demand curve determines the sales revenue at different volumes of output. In this chapter we concentrate on perfect competition
and the demand curve facing a firm operating in such a market structure. Later chapters
focus on the demand curve confronting a firm and the firms optimal output when competition is imperfect.
We will explore how a firms optimal output within a perfectly competitive market
structure responds to changes in price and cost. This information can be used to derive
the firms supply curve and, in turn, the industry supply curve. We also address the longrun outcome in perfect competition and contrast it with short-run responses.
9.1
The Assumptions of Perfect Competition

In common usage, competition refers to intense rivalry among businesses. Microsoft and Sun
Microsystems, Nike and Reebok, Pepsi and Coke are all competitors in this sense. Each firm
makes a business decisionwhether to introduce a new product, advertise existing products
more forcefully, or enhance product qualityonly after considering the effect on competitors and their likely response.
The economists formal model of perfect competition bears little resemblance to this
picture. Perfect competition is distinguished largely by its impersonal nature. More specifically, four conditions characterize a perfectly competitive industry.
perfect
competition
an economic model
characterized by the
assumption of (1) a large
number of buyers and
sellers, (2) free entry
and exit, (3) product
homogeneity, and (4)
perfect information
free entry
and exit
a situation in which
there are no differential
impediments across firms
in the mobility of resources
into and out of an industry
homogeneous
products
standardized products that,

in the eyes of consumers,
are perfect substitutes for
one another
1. Large numbers of buyers and sellers. The presence of a great many independent
participants on each side of the market, none of whom is large in relation to total industry
sales or purchases, normally guarantees that individual participants actions will not
significantly affect the market price and overall industry output. In a market with many
firms, each firm recognizes that its impact on the overall market is negligible, and
consequently does not view other firms as personal rivals.
2. Free entry and exit. Industry adjustments to changing market conditions are always
accompanied by resources entering or leaving the industry. As an industry expands, it
uses more labor, capital, and so on; resources enter the industry. Similarly, resources
leave a contracting industry. A perfectly competitive market requires that there be
no differential impediments across firms in the mobility of resources into, around,
and out of an industry. This condition is sometimes called free entry and exit.
Examples of barriers to entry and exit include an incumbent firm with an exclusive
government patent or operating license and economies of scale that impede the entry
of new firms.
3. Product homogeneity. All the firms in the industry must be producing a standardized
or homogeneous product. In consumers eyes, the goods produced by the industrys
firms are perfect substitutes for one another. This assumption allows us to add the
outputs of the separate firms and talk meaningfully about the industry and its total
Profi t Maximization
227
output. It also contributes to the establishment of a uniform price for the product.
One farmer will be unable to sell corn for a higher price than another if the products
are viewed as interchangeable, because consumers will always purchase from the lowerpriced source.
4. Perfect information. Firms, consumers, and resource owners must have all the information
necessary to make the correct economic decisions. For firms, for example, the relevant
information is knowledge of the production technology, input prices, and the price at which
the product can be sold. For consumers, the relevant information is a knowledge of their
own preferences and the prices of the various goods of interest to them. Moreover, the
consumers, in their role as suppliers of inputs, must know the remuneration they can
receive for supplying productive services.
Probably no industry completely satisfies all four conditions. Agricultural markets come
close, although government involvement in such markets keeps them from fully satisfying
the four conditions. Most industries satisfy some conditions well but not others. Even
though the number of market participants in the gasoline retailing business is large and
entry into the business is fairly easy, for example, not all gasoline brands are the same. Some
brands have higher octane and more detergents, and are better for the environment. Certain
stations are closer to particular consumers and thereby more convenient, or offer better
complements such as full service, food-marts, and pumps that allow customers to pay for
their purchases by inserting a credit card. Moreover, consumers are rarely perfectly informed
about the prices all retailers are charging.
The fact that only a few industries may fully satisfy the four conditions does not mean
that the study of perfect competition is unwarranted. Many industries come close enough to
satisfying the four conditions to make the perfectly competitive model quite useful. Take
the case of gasoline retailing. Although product homogeneity and perfect information may
not fully apply, the extent to which an individual gas station has some choice over what
price to charge per gallon is probably limited to a very narrow band of just a few cents. Such
a narrow pricing power band is pretty close to having no significant impact over price, as
predicted by the competitive model.
9.2
profit
maximization
the assumption that firms

select an output level so
as to maximize profit
Profit Maximization
In perfectly (and imperfectly) competitive markets, is it appropriate to assume profit
maximization on the part of firms? At the outset we should recognize that any profit realized by a business belongs to the business owner(s). For the millions of small businesses
with only one owner-manager, decisions concerning what products to carry, whom to
employ, what price to charge, and so on, will be heavily influenced by the way the
owners profit is affected. Owners of such businesses may well have goals such as early retirement or expensive educations for their children. These goals, however, are not inconsistent with the assumption of profit maximization. Since money is a means to many
ends, early retirement or college educations can more easily be afforded when the owner
makes more money.
A possible problem with assuming profit maximization is that the owner-manager cannot
have detailed knowledge of the cost and revenue associated with each action that could be
taken to maximize profit. Economic theory, however, does not require that firms actually
know or think in terms of marginal cost and revenue, only that they behave as if they did.
survivor
principle
the observation that in

competitive markets, firms
that do not approximate
profit-maximizing
behavior fail, and that
survivors are those firms
that, intentionally or not,
make the appropriate
profit-maximizing
decisions
Firms may come close enough to maximizing profit by trial and error, emulation of successful
firms, following rules of thumb, or blind luck for the assumption to be a fruitful one.
When we move from the small, owner-managed firm to the large, modern corporation, another potential criticism of the profit maximization assumption arises. A characteristic of most large corporations is that the stockholder-owners themselves do not
make the day-to-day decisions about price, employment, advertising, and so on. Instead,
salaried personnel of the corporationmanagersmake these decisions. And so there is
a separation of ownership and control in the corporation; managers control the firm, but
stockholders own it. It is safe to assume that stockholders wish to make as much money
on their investment as possible, but it is virtually impossible for them to constantly
monitor their managers actions. Therefore, managers will have some discretion, and
some of their decisions may conflict with the stockholder-owners profit-maximizing
goals.
While managers may have some discretion to deviate from the profit-maximizing goals
of firms shareholder-owners, several factors limit the exercise of such discretion. For example, stockholder-owners often link business managers compensation to profits, sometimes paying them in part with shares of stock or stock options, in order to give an
incentive to pursue profits more actively. In addition, the profitability managers achieve
in a given enterprise will affect their job prospects with others. And, finally, if managers
do not make as large a profit as possible, stock prices, which tend to reflect profitability
(especially projected profitability), will be lower than need be. Undervalued stock creates
an incentive for outsiders, or raiders, to buy up a controlling interest in the firm and replace the inefficient management team. A firm that neglects profit opportunities too
often leaves itself open to such a takeover bid, a fairly common occurrence in the corporate world.
Operating in a competitive market provides yet another reason it is safe to assume
that a firm will pursue profit maximization as a goal. Consider firms in the hospitality
industry, such as Hilton and Marriott. Suppose some of them virtually ignore profit, either through ignorance, negligence, bad luck, or intention. Their cost of labor is too
high, they fail to minimize waste in their food service, they neglect training for the staff
who serve customers, and so forth. Other firms, whether through superior management,
close attention to costs, or the good luck of being closest to a newly enlarged convention center, produce the right type of lodging in the appropriate quantity and in the
least costly way. What will happen when these firms compete for customers? Clearly,
the firms that come closer to maximizing profit will make money and prosper; the others will suffer losses. In general, in competitive markets, firms that do not approximate
profit-maximizing behavior fail; the survivors will be the firms that, intentionally
or not, make the appropriate, profit-maximizing decisions. This observation is called
the survivor principle and provides a practical defense for the assumption of profit
maximization.
While it goes without saying that firms must pay close attention to profit, some deviation
from single-minded profit maximization may still occur. Most economists, however, believe
that the profit maximization assumption provides a close enough approximation to be useful
in analyzing many problems, and it has become the standard assumption regarding the firms
behavior. While the assumption may not adequately explain why Billy, the company president, hires his neer-do-well brother-in-law, Roger, or why RJR Nabisco appears to have an
excessively large fleet of corporate jets, it does not pretend to try. Instead, it is designed to
explain how a firms output will respond to a higher or a lower price, a tax or a government
regulation, a cost change, and so on. Recall that the ultimate test of a theory is whether it
explains and predicts well, and theories based on the assumption of profit maximization
have passed that test.
The Demand Curve Facing the Competitive Firm
Application
9.1
229
Are American Executives

Underpaid?
n recent years, the pay received by senior business

executives in the United States has grown much
more rapidly (in percentage terms) than the average
workers pay.1 Moreover, counting bonuses and stock
options, the pay received by some executives has been
truly spectacular. For example, Oracles CEO Larry Ellison and Microsofts Bill Gates earned billions of dollars
from their stock options in the 1990s.
Although the high level and rate of increase in senior
executive compensation have received much criticism in
the media and the political arena, leading academic studies suggest that the monetary incentives offered by firms
to their managers may still be inadequate. A study by
Michael Jensen and Kevin Murphy of the Harvard Business School, for instance, finds that CEO wealth rises by
just $3.25 for each $1,000 inprincipalagent
crease in shareholder wealth.
problem
Jensen and Murphy argue that
a situation in which a
their estimated sensitivity figprincipals agent (such as
ures are too small to entirely
the manager of a firm
representing the firms
solve the principalagent
stockholders) may have
problem confronting a firms
an incentive that is not
stockholders: namely, stockentirely consonant with
holders agents (the managers
the interests of the
or principals of the firm) do
principal
not have sufficient incentive to maximize the firms profit

if they receive only $3.25 per $1,000 of stockholder wealth
that is generated. Based on the Jensen-Murphy results, a
CEO would find it worthwhile to use $1 million of the
shareholders potential wealth on a private jet or rare artwork if such an item generated $3,250 in purely personal
pleasure for the CEO. Jensen and Murphy propose that
CEOs pay should be tied more closely to stockholders
wealth to improve corporate performance, but they acknowledge that opposition in the media and the political
arena may limit such a change.
Support for Jensen and Murphys proposal is provided
by a study by John Abowd of Cornell. Abowd examined
16,000 executives in 250 large U.S. corporations over
19811986. He found that increases in the sensitivity of
executive pay to corporate performance improved corporate performance in terms of the rate of return earned
by a firms stockholders. In conjunction with the JensenMurphy results, Abowds findings suggest that linking
managerial compensation more closely to corporate performance can increase shareholder wealth. The existing
link between managerial compensation and corporate
performance, that is, is not yet sufficiently strong to
completely eliminate the principal-agent problem confronted by the stockholders of U.S. firms.
This application is based on Paul Milgrom and John Roberts, Economics, Organization and Management (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1992); Michael C. Jensen and Kevin J. Murphy, Performance Pay and Top-Management Incentives, Journal of Political Economy, 98 No. 2
(April 1990), pp. 225264; and John M. Abowd, Does Performance-Based Managerial Compensation Affect Corporate Performance? Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, 43 No. 1 (February 1990), pp. 52S73S.
9.3
The Demand Curve Facing the Competitive Firm

Assuming that firms are interested in maximizing profit, lets examine the implications of
this assumption in a competitive market setting. Since a competitive market is characterized
by a large number of firms selling the same product, each firm supplies only a small fraction
of the entire industry output. For example, one farmer may account for only one-millionth
of the entire corn industrys output or one building contractor may supply 1 percent of the
total construction services in a particular city.
The nature of the demand curve confronting a single competitive firm follows directly
from the relatively insignificant contribution its output makes toward total supply. The
products price is determined by the interaction of the market supply of and demand for the
product. Because each firm produces such a small portion of the total supply, its output
price taker
a firm that takes prices as

given and does not expect
its output decisions to
affect price
average revenue
(AR)
total revenue divided by
output
Figure
Figure 9.1
4.1
Price
per bushel
decisions have a small effect on the market price. For simplicity the small effect is taken to
be a zero effect, and the demand curve facing a competitive firm is drawn to be perfectly
horizontal. A horizontal demand curve means the firm can sell as much output as it wants
without affecting the products price. Stated differently, a competitive firm is a price taker:
the firm takes the price as given and does not expect its output decisions to affect price.
Figure 9.1 clarifies why the firms demand curve is drawn horizontally. In Figure 9.1b, the
total output of corn is measured horizontally, and the per-unit price is measured vertically.
The market demand curve is shown as D. The premise is that the total quantity offered for
sale by all farms together interacts with this demand curve to determine price. If the combined output of all corn farms is 15 billion bushels, the market price per bushel is $3.
Assume that the Costner farm is one of 1 million identical farms supplying corn, and it is
currently selling 15,000 bushels for $3 each, as shown in Figure 9.1a. The farms demand
curve is drawn horizontally as d in Figure 9.1a because its output variations will not have an
appreciable effect on the market output and price. That is, if the Costner farm produced
15,000 fewer (an output of zero bushels) or more bushels (an output of 30,000 bushels), it
would have an insignificant influence on the total industry output of 15 billion bushels. Consequently, the market price will not be altered by the output actions of this single farm. It is
stuck with having to charge the market price of $3 no matter what output level it selects.
A horizontal demand curve has an elasticity of infinity. Since there are many homogeneous substitutes for any farms output and customers are perfectly informed in a perfectly
competitive market, the quantity of corn demanded from the Costner farm equals zero if the
farm attempts to charge even a penny over the prevailing market price.
A firms average revenue (AR), or total revenue divided by output, is the same as the
prevailing market price. As Figure 9.1 shows, if the market price is $3, then the Costner
farm will on average make $3 per bushel.
The Competitive Farms Demand Curve

(a) Because an individual farm supplies only a small portion of the market output, its
demand curve, d, is perfectly elastic. (b) The interaction of market supply, S, and demand,
D, determine the prevailing market price ($3) and output (15 billion bushels).
Costner Farm
Price
per bushel
$3.00
Market
S
$3.00
D
0
15,000
(a)
Corn
(bushels)
15
(b)
Corn
(billions of
bushels)
Short-Run Profi t Maximization
marginal revenue
(MR)
the change in total

revenue when there is a
one-unit change in output
9.4
total revenue
(TR)
price times the quantity

sold
231
When a firm faces a horizontal demand curve, the market price also equals the firms marginal revenue. Marginal revenue (MR) is defined as the change in total revenue when there
is a one-unit change in output. A firm in a competitive market can sell one more unit of
output without reducing the price it receives for its previous units, so total revenue will rise
by an amount equal to the price. For example, if a farm is selling 15,000 bushels of corn at a
price of $3 per bushel, total revenue is $45,000. If the farm sells 15,001 bushels at a price of
$3 per bushel, as it can with a horizontal demand curve, total revenue rises from $45,000 to
$45,003, or by $3. Once again the familiar average-marginal relationship can be seen to
apply. Where the average revenue (AR) is flat or constant, the marginal revenue equals the
average revenue (MR AR).
Note that the assumption of a horizontal demand curve confronting a competitive firm
does not mean that the price never changes. It just means that the firm, acting by itself, cannot affect the going price. The market price may vary from time to time due to changes in
consumers incomes, technology, consumers preferences, and so on, but not because of
changes in the amount sold by a particular firm.
Short-Run Profit Maximization2

In the short run, a competitive firm operating with a fixed plant can vary its output by altering its employment of variable inputs. To see how a profit-maximizing firm decides on what
level of output to produce, lets begin with a numerical illustration. The information in
Table 9.1 allows us to identify the output (q) that maximizes profit for a hypothetical competitive firm; it includes the short-run cost of production and revenue from the sale of output. We know the firm is selling in a competitive market because the price (P) is constant at
$12 regardless of the output level. Note that total revenue (TR) is equal to price times the
quantity sold, and it rises in proportion to output since the price is constant. Total cost
(TC) rises with output in the familiar fashion, slowly at first and then more rapidly as the
plant becomes more fully utilized and marginal cost rises. Total cost, when output is zero, is
$15, reflecting the total fixed cost.
Table 9.1
Short-Run Cost and Revenue of a Competitive Firm

(in Dollars)
/q
TR
TC
TVC
ATC
AVC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
132
15
25
33
40
46
54
63
73
84.90
98
113
132
0
10
18
25
31
39
48
58
69.90
83
98
117
25
16.50
13.30
11.50
10.80
10.50
10.40
10.61
10.90
11.30
12
15
10
13
13
9
9
4.50
8.30 4
1.30
7.80
2
0.50
7.80
6
1.20
6
9
1.50
8.30
11
1.57
8.70
11.10
1.39
9.20
10
1.25
9.80
7
0.70
10.60
0
0
MC
MR
10
8
7
6
8
9
10
11.90
13.10
15
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
MC MR
MC MR
MC MR
A mathematical treatment of some of the material in this section is given in the appendix at the back of the book
(pages xxxxxx).
total profit ()

the difference between
total revenue and total
cost
average profit
per unit (/q)
total profit divided by
number of units sold
Total profit () is the difference between total revenue and total cost. At low and high
rates of output, profit is negative; that is, the firm would suffer losses. In particular, note that
the firm loses $15 if it produces no output at all because it still must pay its fixed cost when it
shuts down. At an intermediate rate of output in this example, profit is positive. The firm,
however, wishes to make as large a profit as possible, and maximum profit occurs at an output of eight units where profit equals $11.10.
Note that maximizing total profit is generally not the same thing as maximizing average
profit per unit (/q) sold. The firms goal is to maximize its total profit, and that is achieved
at an output of 8 units. Profit per unit at that output is $1.39, but it could have an even
higher average profit, $1.57, by producing just 7 units. Total profit is profit per unit times the
number of units sold, so a lower average profit can correspond to a higher total profit if
enough additional units are sold, as is true in the example of Table 9.1.
Figure 9.2 shows how we identify the most profitable level of output by using the total
revenue and total cost curves. The total revenue curve is a new relationship, but it is a relatively simple one when we are dealing with a competitive firm. With the price per unit constant, total revenue rises in proportion to output and is, therefore, drawn as a straight line
emanating from the origin. Its slope, showing how much total revenue rises when output
changes by one unit, is marginal revenue.
In terms of Figure 9.2, the firm wishes to select the output level where total revenue exceeds total cost by the largest possible amountthat is, where profit is greatest. This situation occurs at output q1, where total revenue, Aq1, exceeds total cost, Bq1, by AB. The
vertical distance AB is total profit at q1. At lower and higher output levels, total profit is
lower than AB. Note that at a lower output level, q0, for example, the TR and TC curves are
diverging (becoming farther apart) as output rises, indicating that profit is greater at a higher
output. This reflects the fact that marginal revenue (the slope of TR) is greater than marginal cost (the slope of TC) over this range. At q1, when the curves are farthest apart (with
Figure
Figure 9.2
9.2
Dollars
TC
TR
MR = P = $12
Short-Run Profit Maximization:

Total Curves
Profit is maximized at the output
where total revenue (TR) exceeds
total cost (TC) by the largest possible
amount. This occurs at output q1,
where profit is equal to AB. The total
profit curve (), which plots total profit
explicitly at each rate of output, also
shows the point of profit
maximization.
A
b
B
b
TFC
TFC
q0
q1
(8)
q3
Output
233
revenue above cost), the slopes of TR and TC (the slope of TC at B is equal to the slope of
bb) are equal, reflecting an equality between marginal revenue and marginal cost.
In Figure 9.2, the level of total profit at each rate of output is also shown explicitly by the
total profit curve (), which reaches a maximum at q1. The total profit curve is derived
graphically by plotting the difference between TR and TC at each output level. For example, AB is equal to Cq1 ; alternatively, when output is zero, profit is negative and equal to
minus total fixed cost (TFC).
Short-Run Profit Maximization Using Per-Unit Curves

Figure 9.3 presents the same information shown in Figure 9.2, but now we use the familiar
per-unit cost and revenue relationships. With the vertical axis measuring dollars per unit of
output, the firms demand curve is shown as a horizontal line, because the firm may sell any
number of units at the $12 price. The figure also shows the average total cost (ATC), average variable cost (AVC), and marginal cost (MC) curves. The most profitable output level
occurs where marginal cost and marginal revenue are equal, at q1 in the figure (eight units in
Table 9.1). The shaded rectangle BCDA shows total profit for that output. The height of
the rectangle, CD, is average revenue ($12) minus average total cost ($10.61 $84.9/8), or
the average profit per unit of output ($1.39 $12 $10.61). Multiplying the average profit
per unit by the number of units sold (the length of the rectangle) yields total profit ($11.10).
Understanding why the firms profit is at a maximum where marginal cost and marginal
revenue are equal is very important. Consider what it would mean if the firm were operating
Short-Run Profit Maximization: Per-Unit Curves

In terms of the per-unit curves, the output that maximizes profit in the short run is where
MC MR, or q1. At lower levels of output such as q0, MC MR, and the firm can increase
profit by expanding output. At higher outputs like q2, MC MR, and the firm can increase
profit by reducing output.
Figure
Figure 9.3
4.1
MC
Dollars
per unit
$13.10
ATC
$12
P = MR = AR
$10.61 A
$10
AVC
q0
(7)
q1
(8)
q2
(9)
Output
at a lower output where MC MR, such as q0 (7 units) in Figure 9.3. At q0, marginal revenue is still $12, but marginal cost is lower ($10). Consequently, the seventh unit of output
adds $12 to revenue but increases total cost by only $10; with revenue increasing more than
cost, profit (the difference) will rise from $9 (at 6 units) to $11 when the seventh unit is
sold. At any rate of output where marginal revenue is greater than marginal cost, the firm
can increase its profit by increasing output. As output expands, marginal cost rises, so the
addition to profit from each successive unit becomes smaller (but is still positive) until q1 is
reached, where MC MR.
At output levels beyond q1 the firm would be producing too much output. At q2 (9 units
in Table 9.1), for example, marginal cost is $13.10 and is greater than marginal revenue
($12). Thus, total profit could be increased by reducing output. If the firm produces 1 unit
less, it loses $12 in revenue. But cost falls by $13.10, so the net effect is a $1.10 increase in
profit. Thus, the firms profit will increase by decreasing output if MC MR.
In summary, the rule for profit maximization is to produce where MC MR. Because
marginal revenue equals price for a competitive firm, we can also express this condition as
MC P. This rule does not mean that the firm intentionally sets price equal to marginal
cost since, for a competitive firm, price is given and beyond its control. Instead, the firm will
adjust its production until the marginal cost is brought into equality with price.3
Application
9.2
The Importance of Thinking

at the Relevant Margin
L earning
to think at the margin is one of the important lessons economists strive to teach. A corol4
lary of that lesson that often does not get the attention
it merits is that the relevant margin over which revenues (benefits) and costs should be compared depends
on the nature of the activity involved. The relevant
margin also depends on the costs associated with actually calculating marginal revenue and marginal cost as
one strives to measure production in ever finer units. For
example for the typical corn farmer the relevant margin may involve units of 1000 bushels and comparing
the marginal revenue and marginal cost associated with
expanding output by 1000 bushels. Making a similar
comparison for each 1-bushel increment may be computationally too expensive an endeavor.
This application is based on Great Ideas for Teaching Economics

3rd ed., by Ralph T. Byrns and Gerald W. Stone (Glenview IL:
Scott Foresman and Company 1987); and Thomas L. Friedman The
Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux 1999).
To drive home the importance of focusing on the

relevant margin economist Gary Galles of Pepperdine
University likes to tell his students the following
story:
Suppose you are walking through Central Park at
two in the morning and you have $200 in your
wallet. Suppose further that a mugger pulls a knife
on you and tells you to give him all your money.
How do you respond? Do you say Ill tell you
what: Ill give you $200 if you leave me alone;
$150 if you rough me up a little bit; $100 if you
cut me a little; $50 if you put me in the hospital;
but nothing if you kill me? Of course not because
you would be focusing on the wrong margin for
decision-making; you are faced with an all-ornone decision not one in which marginal adjustments can be made (that is the relevant marginal
decision is the all-or-none decision of how to respond to the muggerfight or hand over the
money. Once that decision is made marginal ones
Because the MC curve is U-shaped, MC may equal P at two different output levels. In this case the lower level is
not the profit-maximizing output; in fact, it is the minimum-profit (or maximum-loss) output. If it is necessary to
distinguish these two outputs, the profit-maximizing output is where MC P and MC cuts P from below (that is,
MC is rising).
3

may follow like how hard to fight or how much
money to try to withhold.)
The relevant margins can of course change over
time for certain activities. Take the case of farming
where it is now possible to attach microchip-based sensors to tractors that are capable of measuring the exact
amount of a crop coming off every foot of a farm. The
sensors furthermore are connected via a transmitter to
a global positioning satellite (GPS) system in outer
space that allows a farmer to precisely track the output
from every location on a farm. The benefits associated
with being able to more finely specify the relevant marginal units using technological improvements can be
substantial. As noted by Pulitizer-Prize-winning reporter
Thomas Friedman in recounting the story of one socalled precision farmer Gary Wagner of Minnesota:
What I found out was something of a surprise
said Wagner. It was a common belief that yield
did not vary much from one area of your field to
another. You looked out at your field and it all
looked uniform to the eye. But once we generated
a price yield map from this program we discovered
that there was a major difference in yield between
some acres and others as much as $150 an acre
235
which can be the difference between a profit and a
loss on that acre. Once I had that information it
was worth its weight in gold to me because we
have a choice every season of different varieties of
crops to plant. By using these sorts of computerized
yield monitors we can tell exactly which varieties
of crops grow best in which soils under our management. [Wagner] could also program . . . all the
[relevant] information [soil moisture slope of land]
into his fertilizer applicator and then tie that applicator in with the GPS system. Once he had that
system together he could drive down his sugarbeet field and the GPS system would know which
acre he was on the software program would know
just how much fertilizer the specific acre liked and
the fertilizer applicator would automatically dispense the exact amount of nitratesmore in some
places less in othersdemanded by that specific
area. It saved on fertilizer which was good for the
environment and maximized his yields which was
good for his pocketbook. Instead of having to
work with information that was based on averages
for the region for the average farmer we were able
to tailor everything to ourselves [at the appropriate
margin] said Wagner.

A firm in a perfectly competitive market may find itself in the unenviable situation of suffering a loss no matter what output level it produces. In that event the firm has two alternatives: it can continue to operate at a loss, or it can shut down. (Recall that we are dealing
with a short-run setting; halting production may be only a temporary move until market
conditions improve and is not necessarily the same as going out of business.) Yet shutting
down will not avoid a loss since the firm remains liable for its fixed cost whether or not it
operates. The relevant question is whether the firm will lose less by continuing to operate or
by shutting down.
Figure 9.4 illustrates the case where the firms best option is to operate at a loss rather
than shut down. With the price at $8 per unit and the cost curves as shown, the firms most
profitable output (which can also mean its least unprofitable output, as it does here) is the
point where price equals marginal cost at q1. Because the average total cost curve lies above
the price line everywhere, the firm incurs losses at all output levels. But at q1 the loss is the
smallest, as indicated by the rectangle BCFE. The height of this rectangle, CF, is the difference between average cost and average revenue, or the negative profit margin per unit,
and the length of the rectangle, EF, is the number of units sold at a loss.
How do we know that the firm loses less by producing at q1 than by shutting down? Consider the larger rectangle BCDA. The height of the rectangle, CD, is the difference between
ATC and AVC at q1. Thus, CD measures average fixed cost. Recall that AVC AFC
ATC; therefore, ATC AVC AFC, and average fixed cost multiplied by the number of
units produced (the length of the rectangle) equals total fixed cost (or the area of rectangle
Figure
Figure 9.4
4.1

In the short run, a firm may continue to produce even though its best output yields a loss.
As long as average revenue covers average variable cost, it is in the firms interest to
continue operating. Output will be q1 even though the firms loss is BCFE, because the
loss would be even greaterBCDAif it shut down.
Dollars
per unit
MC
ATC
AVC
C
B
$8 = E
P = MR = AR
A
D
q1
Output
BCDA). Even if the firm shuts down, it will still incur a loss, namely, total fixed cost. But
because that loss (BCDA) is larger than the loss (BCFE) incurred if the firm continues to
operate, the firm loses less by producing q1 than by shutting down. It is better to operate and
lose $100 per week than to shut down and lose $200 per week.
If the price falls sufficiently, however, the firm may lose less by shutting down, as we will
see in the following section. Moreover, even when it is in the firms interest to produce at a
loss, as in Figure 9.4, this equilibrium can be only temporary (short run). If the price remains
at $8, the firm will ultimately go out of business. The point here is that a firm will not immediately liquidate its assets the moment it begins to suffer losses.
9.5
short-run firm
supply curve
a graph of the systematic

relationship between a
products price and a
firms most profitable
output level
The Perfectly Competitive Firms

Short-Run Supply Curve
The previous discussion implies a systematic relationship between a products price and a
firms most profitable output. We can analyze this relationship to derive the short-run firm
supply curve in a perfectly competitive industry. Figure 9.5 depicts the firms average variable and marginal cost curves. Note that the average total cost curve is not shown because it
is not needed to identify the most profitable output level. The ATC curve is primarily useful
for showing total profit or loss. If the per-unit price is $8, the firm will produce at point B,
where marginal cost equals $8, so output will be q1. If the price rises from $8 to $12, then the
firms profit would change, as would the most profitable output. Suppose that the firm maintains an output of q1 when the price rises to $12. Its profit will increase because revenue
The Perfectly Competitive Firms Short-Run Supply Curve
Figure
Figure 9.5
4.1
237
The Competitive Firms Short-Run Supply Curve

The part of the MC curve lying above the minimum point on the AVC curve identifies the
firms most profitable output at prices above $5. Below a price of $5, the firm will be
better off shutting down. Above a price of $5, the firm maximizes profit by producing
where price equals marginal cost. Because the MC curve slopes upward, the firm
increases output at a higher price. The solid, dark red curve represents the competitive
firms short-run supply curve.
Dollars
per unit
MC
P2 = MR2 = AR2
$12
AVC
B
$8
P1 = MR1 = AR1
A
$5
shutdown point
the minimum level of
average variable cost
below which the firm
will cease operations
P0 = MR0 = AR0
q0
q1
q2
Output
rises, but its cost will not change. The firm, however, can increase profit by increasing
output. At q1, marginal revenue ($12) now exceeds marginal cost ($8), signaling that an
output increase will add more to revenue than to cost. The new profit-maximizing output
occurs where output has expanded until marginal cost equals the $12 price, at point C on
the MC curve. Thus, a higher price gives the firm an incentive to expand output from q1
to q2.
The MC P ( MR) rule for maximizing profit in a competitive market structure therefore implies that a firm will produce more at a higher price because increased production becomes profitable at a higher price. In fact, we can think of the MC curve as the firms supply
curve in the short run, since it identifies the most profitable output for each possible price.
For example, at a price of $8 output is q1 at point B on MC, at a price of $12 output is q2 at
point C on MC, and so on.
One important qualification to this proposition should be mentioned. If price is too
low, the firm will shut down. At a price of $5 the firm can just cover its variable cost by
producing at point A, where average variable cost equals the price. At this point the firm
would be operating at a short-run loss; in fact, the loss would be exactly equal to its total
fixed cost, because revenue just covers variable cost, leaving nothing to set against fixed
cost. At a price below $5 the firm is unable to cover its variable cost and would find it best
to shut down. Thus, point A, the minimum level of average variable cost, is effectively the
shutdown point: if price falls below that level, the firm will cease operations.
As a consequence of this qualification, only the segment of the marginal cost curve that
lies above the point of minimum average variable cost is relevant. Stated differently, the
marginal cost curve above point A identifies the firms output at prices above $5; at any
lower price output will be zero.
Application
9.3
The Method to Mothballing
verage variable cost curves tend to differ in

height across an industrys firms as well as across
the various operating units of some firms. Thus we
should expect to see a particular sequential pattern in
which firms or operating units are shut down as the prevailing price in an industry falls. Namely firms or operating units having higher minimum levels of average
variable cost will be taken out of operations first as the
prevailing price in the industry declines. For example a
fall in crude oil prices typically first results in the shutdown of stripper wellswells that are relatively more
costly to operate because they produce less than 10 barrels a day. A decline in fares in the domestic airline industry as occurred in the wake of the terrorist acts of
September 11 2001 led to airline companies mothballing older less fuel-efficient planes first. The air parks
of Arizona where the desert climate is conducive to the
Application
9.4
storage of aircraft began to fill up disproportionately in

late 2001 with older models (four-engine 747s and
three-engine 727s) as opposed to newer types of aircraft
(two-engine 767s 757s and MD80s).
The pattern also works in reverse when the price in
an industry increases. That is firms or operating units
having higher minimum levels of average variable cost
are brought out of storage last. Consider the oil tanker
market following Iraqs invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The
invasion resulted in an upward spike in crude oil prices
that in turn led to a sharp increase in oil tanker charter
rates. As the charter rate or price that could be earned
from operating a tanker increased owners first brought
newer more fuel-efficient tankersvery large or ultralarge diesel-powered tankersout of dry dock (storage)
as opposed to older usually smaller steam-powered
tankers.
The Competitive Firms Supply Curve

in the Very Short Run
W etivehavefirmbeencanexamining
cases in which a competivary its output in the short run by
altering its employment of variable inputs. What if, in
the very short run, it is not possible for the firm to alter
its use of any inputs? What does the competitive firms
supply curve look like under such a scenario? For example, consider a producer of shovels immediately following the discovery of gold in 1848 at Sutters Mill near
then sparsely populated Sacramento, California. The
discovery sparked a tremendous rush to mine the precious metal and dramatically increased the demand for
and price of such mining implements as shovels. A
shovel, whose nominal price had been only $1 in the

Sacramento area prior to the gold discovery, sold for as
much as $50 immediately following the discovery.
In the days just after the gold discovery, a supplier of
shovels to the Sacramento area could not appreciably
alter its output even though the demand for and price of
shovels sharply increased. In 1848, it took more than a
few days for the manufacturer to hear news of the gold
discovery, manufacture additional shovels, and then
ship the additional shovels to the Sacramento area (the
relevant communication, manufacturing, and transportation times were much greater 150 years ago).
The Perfectly Competitive Firms Short-Run Supply Curve

In a very-short-run scenario when no inputs can be
altered, the firms marginal cost curve is effectively
vertical above the shutdown point (not upwardsloping, as it is in Figure 9.5 above point A). With a
vertical marginal cost curve, no matter how high the
239
price rises for the product, the firm cannot alter its output. Thus, the firms supply curve is also vertical or
perfectly price inelastic in a very-short-run setting
where the firm cannot alter the use of its inputs.
Output Response to a Change in Input Prices

Many factors can affect the competitive firms output decision, but perhaps the two most
common are variations in the product price and variations in the prices of inputs used in
production. In reality, product and input prices frequently change at the same time, but at
the outset, examining each factor in isolation is best. In the preceding paragraphs we examined the way a product price change affects output when input prices are constant (reflected
in the fact that the cost curves did not shift). Now lets study the impact of an input price
change while holding constant the product price.
Figure 9.6 illustrates a competitive firm initially producing the output q1 where marginal
cost, shown by MC, equals the $12 product price. Note that only the marginal cost curve
above the shutdown point, point A, is drawn in. Now suppose that the price of one (or
more) of the variable inputs falls. As we saw in Chapter 8, lower input prices cause the cost
curves to shift downward, indicating a lower cost associated with each rate of output than
before. This change is depicted in the diagram by a shift in the marginal cost curve from MC
Figure
Figure 9.6
4.1
How the Firm Responds to Input Price Changes

An input price change, with an unchanged product price, alters the profit-maximizing
output. If an input price falls, MC shifts to MC, and output increases to q2, where MC
equals the unchanged price.
Dollars per
unit
MC
MC
$12
P = MR = AR
A
$6
q1
q2
Output
to MC. The rule for profit maximization in competitive markets, MC P, determines

the new output level q2. To proceed to this conclusion somewhat more slowly, note that
at the initial output level, a lower input price decreases the marginal cost from $12 to $6.
After the reduction in cost, the price ($12) is higher than marginal cost ($6), indicating
that an expansion in output will now (at the lower input price) add more to revenue than
to cost and thereby increase profit. Consequently, the firm will expand output along the
new MC curve until marginal cost once again equals marginal revenue at q2.
In this section we have reviewed the competitive firms reactions to changes in its economic environmentchanges communicated to the firm through variations in input or
product prices. A competitive firm by itself does not influence these prices; it is a price taker.
Nonetheless, the combined actions of all the competing firms affect product and input prices,
as we will see in the following sections. Each firms response to price changes is an integral
part of the adjustment process by which the overall market strives to reach equilibrium.
9.6
short-run
industry supply
curve
the horizontal sum of the

individual firms marginal
cost curves
The Short-Run Industry Supply Curve

Moving from the determination of the most profitable output of the competitive firm to the
short-run industry supply curve is a short step. In the short run a competitive firm will produce at a point where its marginal cost equals the price, as long as the price is above the
minimum point of the average variable cost curve. In other words, each firms marginal cost
curve indicates how much the firm will produce at alternative prices. As a first approximation, the short-run industry supply curve is derived by simply adding the quantities produced by
each firmthat is, by summing the individual firms marginal cost curves horizontally. We assume
for now that variable input prices remain constant at all levels of industry output.
Figure 9.7 illustrates how a short-run industry supply curve is derived for the three firms
(A, B, and C) composing the cement industry. Although three firms may not be enough to
constitute a competitive industry, the derivation is the same regardless of the number of
firms involved. The figure shows the portion of each firms marginal cost (MC) curve lying
above its minimum average variable cost (AVC). Because the supply curve identifies the
total quantity offered for sale at each price, we will add the outputs each firm chooses to produce individually.
At any price below P0, the minimum point on firm Cs AVC curve, industry output is zero
because all three firms shut down. At P0, firm C begins to produce. Note that its output is
the only output on the market until price reaches P1, because the other companies will not
operate at such low prices. Thus, the lower portion of firm Cs MC curve reflects the total
industry supply curve at low prices. When price reaches P1, however, firm A begins to produce, and its output must be added to Cshence, the kink in the industry supply curve at
P1. When price reaches P2, firm B begins production, and its output is included in the supply
curve at prices above P2. We refer to this derivation of the short-run industry supply curve as
a horizontal summation of the individual firms short-run marginal cost curves because we
are horizontally summing quantities across firms. For example, at a price of P3, total industry
supply is Q, the sum of the amounts each company produces at that price (qA qB qC).
Note that the short-run industry supply curve, SS, slopes upward. Remember that each
firms MC curve slopes upward because it reflects the law of diminishing marginal returns to
variable inputs. Thus, the law of diminishing marginal returns is the basic determinant of
the shape of the industrys short-run supply curve.
Price and Output Determination in the Short Run

Incorporating the market demand for the product completes the short-run competitive
model. Because the market demand relates total purchases (from all firms) to the price of cement, it interacts with the supply curve to determine price and quantity. In Figure 9.7, the
The Short-Run Industry Supply Curve
Figure
Figure 9.7
4.1
241
The Short-Run Competitive Industry Supply Curve

Each firm will produce an output where marginal cost equals price to maximize profit. To
derive the short-run industry supply curve, SS, we must horizontally sum the amounts
produced by the industrys various firms, as shown by their respective marginal cost curves.
Dollars
per unit
MCA
MCB
MCC
SS
P4
P3
P2
P1
P0
qA
qB
qC
Quantity of
cement
intersection of the demand curve D with the supply curve identifies the price where total
quantity demanded equals total quantity supplied. Thus, price P3 is the short-run equilibrium price, and total industry output is Q. Each firm, taking price as given, produces an output where marginal cost equals P3. Firm A thus produces qA; firm B, qB; firm C, qC; the
combined output, qA qB qC, equals Q.
Given the Figure 9.7 supply and demand relationships, if price were at a level other than
P3 for some reason, familiar market pressures would work to push price toward its equilibrium level. For example, at a price lower than P3, total quantity demanded by consumers
would exceed the total amount supplied, a temporary shortage would exist, and price would
be bid up. As price rises toward P3, quantity demanded becomes smaller while quantity supplied becomes larger, until the two eventually come into balance at price P3. Conversely, if
price were higher than P3, quantity supplied would exceed quantity demanded, a temporary
surplus would exist, and competition among firms would drive the price down.
In the short run an increase in market demand leads to a higher price and a higher output. Suppose that we begin with the equilibrium just described, and then demand increases
to D. A shortage will exist at the initial price of P3, and price will rise. The higher price will
elicit a greater output response from the individual firms as they move up along their MC
curves. The new short-run equilibrium will be price P4 and quantity Q.
Note that Figure 9.7 does not explicitly identify the profits, if any, realized by the firms. If
we drew in each firms average total cost curve, we could show them, but we do not need to
use the average cost curves to explain the determination of price and quantity in the short
run. All the necessary information is contained in the industry supply and demand curves.
Application
9.5
Why Electric Bills in California

Increased After Deregulation
T raditionally,
electricity generation was assumed to
be subject to economies of scale. To allow con5
sumers to realize the cost-side benefits of increased output by an individual supplier, electric utilities typically
were granted exclusive rights to generate electricity for
particular service territories. The utilities were placed
under price regulation or state ownership to ensure that
these lower average costs associated with a single companys generating electricity were passed on to consumers in the form of lower electric bills.
The extent to which there are economies of scale in
the generation of electricity, however, has come under
scrutiny over the last two decades. Indeed, most economists now believe that such economies are insufficient
to justify granting utilities exclusive rights to generate
power for particular service territories. Indeed, although
there may be important cost-side advantages to having a
single, existing utility distribute power in a given locality,
there also appear to be significant advantages associated
with promoting competition between different companies to generate the power that will be distributed within
the locality. A fitting analogy is the supply of gasoline
for your car. It is desirable to have only one fuel system
in your car, but competition between gas stations serves
to keep your gasoline bills down.
To promote the benefits of competition, most states
either already had deregulated electricity or were considering taking such a step by 2000. California initiated
its deregulation in 1999, starting with San Diego. Instead of going down, however, electric bills went up.
During the summer of 2000, for example, the typical
San Diegans electric bill was two to three times greater
than it had been the previous summer.
Consider Figure 9.8a to understand why bills for electricity, measured in kilowatt hours (kWh), increased.
Everything else being equal, suppose that deregulation allows for sources of power other than the public utility that
has traditionally served San Diego. The short-run supply
5
This application is based on: Paul L. Joskow and Richard
Schmalensee, Markets for Power (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983);
James Flanigan, Deregulation Is the Answer, Not the Problem, latimes.com, August 27, 2000; and Betsy Streisand, Power to the People, U.S. News Online, August 21, 2000.
curve to San Diego subsequent to deregulation, SS, thus is

derived by horizontally summing the traditional public
utilitys marginal cost curve (MCPU) with the marginal
cost curve associated with other power companies from
outside the traditional service territory (MCO). As you can
see in Figure 9.8a, deregulation puts downward pressure on
price. Assuming that prior to deregulation regulators set
the price at P2 (where the demand curve, D, intersects the
traditional utilitys marginal cost curve, MCPU), competition for electricity generation lowers the price to P1
(where demand intersects the supply curve, SS).
In reality, however, deregulation failed to introduce
sizable downward pressure on price because California
didnt encourage entry by new suppliers as actively as did
some other states. For example, Pennsylvania, with an
electricity market less than 12 percent the size of Californias, aggressively promoted competition and attracted
more than 100 new suppliers. By contrast, California
drew only a handful. The added potential output from
the new suppliers (represented by MCO) thus is small relative to the existing supply curve from traditional sources
(represented by MCPU). Consequently, the potential decrease in price brought about by deregulation, from P2 to
P1 in Figure 9.8a, is smaller than it would have been had
competition been more aggressively promoted.
More importantly, two changes in the market put appreciable upward pressure on electric bills. First, the
price of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal increased significantly due to cutbacks in the supply of
crude oil by the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Since utilities rely
extensively on fossil fuels to generate electricity, the increase in the price of these inputs shifted the relevant
marginal cost curves upward from MCPU to MCPU and
MCO to MCO in Figure 9.8b. As a result of the increase
in the cost of generating electricity by both traditional
and outside suppliers, the short-run supply curve shifted
leftward from SS to SS.
Second, demand for electricity in California had
been growing nearly 5 percent a year, but no new power
plants were built in the state for more than 10 years
prior to deregulation due to environmental concerns
and a cumbersome regulatory approval process. The increase in demand fueled by the economic boom of the
The Short-Run industry supply curve
Figure
Figure 9.8
9.8
The Short-Run Electricity
Supply Curve in California
and Why the Price of
Electricity Increased in 2000
(a) The short-run electricity
supply curve is derived by
horizontally summing the
supply curves from traditional
public utility sources (MCPU)
and new outside providers
(MCO). In and of itself,
allowing in outside suppliers
puts downward pressure on
the price of electricity from
P2 to P1.
(b) Instead of decreasing
subsequent to deregulation,
the price of electricity ends
up increasing due to a
simultaneous shift in demand
(from D to D) and a leftward
shift in the short-run supply
curve (from SS to SS).
243
Price per
kWh
MCO
MCPU
SS
P2
P1
P0
D
0
kWh
(a)
Price per
kWh
'
MCPU
'
MCO
MCO
SS'
MCPU
P3
SS
P2
D'
P0
D
0
kWh
(b)
late 1990s shifted the demand for electricity rightwardfrom D to D in Figure 9.8b.
Between the rightward shift in demand and the leftward shift in short-run supply, the price of electricity
ends up rising to P3 in Figure 9.8b (where SS and D intersect). And, as we can now see, the increase in the
price of electricity reflects the workings of the familiar

forces of supply and demand rather than a consequence
of deregulation.
Of course, knowing that the forces of supply and demand are at work is little solace to a consumer whose
electricity bill has suddenly doubled. As has happened

in other cases where the price of a good has increased
appreciably, pressure quickly mounted in California political circles to force utilities to roll back rates and/or to
lower electricity prices through taxpayer subsidies.
Moreover, in keeping with the law of demand, consumers quickly began to look for ways to lower the
9.7
amount of electricity they demanded in the wake of the

price increase. Even Sea Worlds star attraction, Shamu,
began to feel the heat. The chillers that keep the killer
whales 7-million-gallon tank at a comfortable 55 degrees began to be shut down periodically to save on the
parks $2.5 million annual electric bill.
Long-Run Competitive Equilibrium6

At any time, the short-run scale of plant a firm has built reflects a previous long-run decision.
As a result, we must consider how the goal of profit maximization guides firms long-run decisions and what that implies, in turn, about long-run competitive equilibrium. The same principles we used for the short-run setting apply to long-run profit maximization, but now we
employ long-run cost curves, which allow a sufficient period of time to vary all inputs.
Figure 9.9 shows the long-run cost curves LAC and LMC for a representative firm in a
perfectly competitive industry. If the firm believes the price will remain at $12, it will want
to select an output level of q3, where long-run marginal cost equals price. Producing q3 in-
Figure
Figure 9.9
4.1
Long-Run Profit Maximization

The competitive firm maximizes its profit by producing where LMC P. With a price of
$12, output will be q3. By building a larger-scale plant and adjusting its output from q1 to
q3, the firm increases its profit from EGHI to EFAC.
Dollars
per unit
LMC
SAC1
SMC1
$12
LAC
F
P = MR = AR
I
$7
H
A
C
B
q1
q2
P = MR = AR
q3
Output
(pages xxxxxx).
Long-Run Competitive Equilibrium
zero economic
profit
the point at which total

profit is zero since price
equals the average cost
of production
245
volves building a scale of plant having a related short-run average cost curve (not depicted)
tangent to LAC at point A. After building the plant, the firm realizes a total profit shown by
area EFAC. No other size plant yields as much profit, since the long-run cost curves reflect
all possible scales of plants the firm can select.
Figure 9.9 also illustrates why a short-run profit-maximizing outcome may be only a temporary equilibrium. Suppose that the price is $12 but the representative firm currently has a
scale of plant with the short-run cost curves SAC1 and SMC1. With that size plant the firms
short-run profit-maximizing equilibrium is q1, with the firm earning profit equal to the
striped rectangular area EGHI. If the firm expects the price of $12 to persist, however, it
would immediately begin making plans to enlarge its scale of plant, because it could earn
significantly higher profit, area EFAC, by building the appropriate long-run scale of plant
identified by point A. By its very nature, a short-run equilibrium is only temporary unless
the firms scale of plant is consistent with the price that is expected to persist in the market.
Suppose now that the expected price over the long run is $7 instead of $12. The horizontal demand curve at this price is just tangent to LAC at point B. For this demand curve the
most profitable long-run output is q2, where price equals long-run marginal cost. Total profit,
however, is zero since price just equals the average cost of production.
The firms long-run equilibrium at q2, with price just covering average cost, has great significance. For one thing, the q2 equilibrium indicates zero economic profit. Since the longrun cost curves take into account the opportunity costs of inputs, this implies that the return
from employing inputs in the firm is as high as from the best alternative use of those inputs.
In the case of capital, for instance, a firms owners must be earning as great a return as the
one they could make if their capital was employed elsewhere. Although the firms books may
show a positive accounting profit, the q2 equilibrium involves a normal economic return
being earned by inputs such as capital and thus zero economic profit.
Should a firm stay in business if it is earning zero economic profit at an output such as q2
in Figure 9.9? The answer to this question is an emphatic yes. Zero economic profit means
that the various inputs, including capital provided by the owners, can earn just as much
somewhere else. Although this is true, the relevant consideration is that they cant earn any
more elsewhere, which is why the firm has an incentive to continue production.
The q2 equilibrium is also significant because it is precisely the type of equilibrium competitive markets tend toward in the long run. To see why, remember that free entry and exit
of resources is one of the characteristics of a perfectly competitive market. Figure 9.9 indicates how a price of $12 creates an incentive for the firm to expand output from q2 to q3 and
provides the firm with a positive economic profit. Positive economic profit implies that resources invested in the industry generate a return higher than what could be earned elsewhere. Without barriers to entry, the abnormally high return results in new firms entering
the industry; investors can make more money by shifting their resources into an industry affording positive economic profits. As shown in Figure 9.10, however, new entry also results
in the industry short-run supply curve shifting to the right and a decrease in price. This
process continues until the market demand curve and the new industry supply curve (SS)
intersect at the same price (P) where long-run marginal cost equals the minimum point on
the representative firms long-run average total cost curve. Entry continues, in other words,
until any positive economic profit signal and hence incentive for entry are eliminated.
There is no incentive to enter the industry (that is, economic profit equals zero) when longrun average cost equals average revenue where long-run marginal cost equals price.
The long-run equilibrium shown in Figure 9.10 has three characteristics. First, the representative firm is maximizing profit and producing where LMC equals price. This condition
must hold for a simple reason. If firms are not producing the appropriate amounts, they have
an incentive to alter their output levels to increase profit. A change in firms outputs, however, affects the total quantity offered for sale by the industry, which in turn changes the
Figure
Figure9.10
4.1
Long-Run Competitive Equilibrium

(b) An industry in long-run competitive equilibrium where SS and D intersect.
(a) The equilibrium from the perspective of a representative firm. The firm is producing
the most profitable output (LMC P) and is making zero economic profit (LAC AR).
Dollars per
unit
LMC
$12
Dollars per
unit
SS
SS
P = MR = AR
LAC
$7
P = MR = AR
q2
q3
Output
Q1
(a)
Q2
Output
(b)
price at which the output is sold. Thus, the initial price cannot be an equilibrium price if
firms are not producing where LMC equals price.
Second, there must be no incentive for firms to enter or leave the industry. This condition occurs when firms are making zero economic profits. If profits were higher, other firms
seeking higher returns would enter the industry; if profits were lower, firms would leave the
industry because they could do better elsewhere. This entry or exit would affect the level of
industry output and change the price. If, however, profits in this industry are comparable to
profits in other industries, there is no reason for entry or exit to occur, and price and output
will remain stable.
Third, the combined quantity of output of all the firms at the prevailing price equals the
total quantity consumers wish to purchase at that price. If this condition were violated,
there would be either excess demand or excess supply at the prevailing price, so the price
would not be an equilibrium one.
Zero Profit When Firms Cost Curves Differ?

When all firms in a competitive industry have identical cost curves, every firm must be making zero economic profit in long-run equilibrium. Cost curves, however, may differ among
firms. Some businesses may have access to superior technology, patents, or more skilled
workers vis--vis other firms. These differences will be reflected as differences in production
costs. While firms LAC curves may be shaped and positioned differently, their minimum
points will still end up at the same cost per unit through the process described below.
If firms cost curves differ, we must reconsider the proposition that every firm makes zero
economic profit in a long-run equilibrium. As it turns out, this proposition is still correct,
but the reason it is deserves attention. To see why, consider the case of two firms that are
both in the business of raising corporate executives IQs, Densa and Mensa. Lets suppose
The Long-Run Industry Supply Curve
247
that Mensa has some especially productive input that Densa does not have. For example,
suppose that Mensa and Densa both purchase office space to begin their operations.
Through foresight or chance, Mensas selected office site proves to be more favorable. Suppose that government policymakers unexpectedly encourage businesses to set up shop in
Mensas vicinity while locating a nuclear waste dump adjacent to Densa, thereby scaring off
potential corporate neighbors. Because of the government actions, Mensas location is more
productive, even though both firms originally may have paid the same price for the office
space. The better location accounts for Mensas lower production cost.
Due to the unexpectedly productive location, Mensas income statement will indicate a
positive accounting profit. The original price Mensa paid for the space understates its real
economic value; that is, the cost of using the space is greater than its purchase price. Remember, however, that cost reflects forgone opportunities, and once it is known that
Mensas location is highly productive, its market valuewhat other firms would pay for the
spacewill rise. Provided that input markets are perfectly competitive, the opportunity cost
to Mensa of its office space will be bid up to reflect its full economic value. Once Mensas office space is valued at its true opportunity cost, Mensas economic profit falls to zero.
In this analysis it makes no difference whether Mensa rents or owns the office space. If
Mensa rents the space, and it becomes apparent that the space is unusually productive, the
rental cost will go up because other firms will be willing to pay more for highly productive office space. If Mensa owns the office space, the same principle applies; the original purchase
price is irrelevant. What counts is how much the office space is worth to other potential
usersthat is, its opportunity cost. In this case the cost of using the office space is an implicit
cost, and, as explained in an earlier chapter, we include implicit costs in the cost curves.
The process by which unusually productive inputs receive higher compensation is not restricted to office space. Suppose that you go to work for a business as a manager and are
promised a salary of $40,000. When the firm hires you, it doesnt know whether youll be
any good at your job. Fortunately, you turn out to be brilliant, and even after paying your
salary, the firms net revenue rises by $25,000 due to your extraordinary managerial skills.
The firms owner is delighted, and the firms books show a $25,000 profit increase. Once
your managerial skills are recognized, however, you are in a position to command and receive a $25,000 raise, which will effectively eliminate the firms accounting profit. You will
be in such a position so long as your managerial skills are transferable across firms and there
is a competitive market for your managerial talents. Provided these conditions hold, if you
dont get a raise, you can resign and accept a position with another firm that will pay you a
salary closer to what youre worthyour best alternativeand your former employers profit
will decline to its original level.
Needless to say, this process doesnt work instantaneously or with exact precision. There
is a tendency, however, for inputs to receive compensation equal to their opportunity costs,
that is, what they are worth to alternative users. This process leads to the zero-profit equilibrium. One implication of this analysis is that the accounting measure of profit may vary
widely among firms in an industry even though economic profit is zero for each firm. This
variation arises because a firms assets are frequently valued on the books at their original
purchase prices instead of their opportunity costs. In our earlier example, Mensas accounting profit would be higher than Densas if they both counted only the purchase price of the
office space as a cost.
9.8

To derive the competitive industrys short-run supply curve we horizontally sum individual
firms supply curves. We cannot similarly derive a competitive industrys long-run supply
curve, however, because in the long run firms enter or exit the industry in response to the
long-run
industry supply
curve
the long-run relationship

between price and industry
output, which depends on
whether input prices are
constant, increasing, or
decreasing as the industry
expands or contracts
constant-cost
industry
an industry in which
expansion of output does
not bid up input prices,
long-run average
production cost per unit
remains unchanged, and
the long-run industry
supply curve is horizontal
increasing-cost
industry
an industry in which
expansion of output leads
to higher long-run average
production costs and the
long-run supply curve
slopes upward
decreasing-cost
industry
a highly unusual situation

in which the long-run
supply curve is downwardsloping
economic profits being earned. So we do not know which firms supply curves to sum horizontally. Moreover, as an industry expands or contracts due to firm entry or exit, the prices
that firms pay for their inputs may change. For example, as the movie business expands due
to firm entry, the prices of actors and directors may be bid up. As the oil producing industry
shrinks due to firm exit, the prices of petroleum engineers and drilling rigs may decline.
As we will see, the derivation of a long-run industry supply curve in a competitive market depends centrally on what happens to input prices as the industry expands or contracts.
Based on the three possible effects of industry size on input prices, competitive industries are
classified as constant-cost, increasing-cost, or decreasing-cost. We address each of these
cases in turn, starting with the simplest of the three: when input prices remain constant regardless of an industrys overall size.
Constant-Cost Industry
To derive the long-run supply curve for a constant-cost industry, we start from a position of
equilibrium and trace the effects of a demand change until the industry once again returns
to a long-run equilibrium. As our example, lets assume that the market for MBA education
is perfectly competitive, with business schools being the representative firms. We begin by
examining the industry when it is in long-run equilibrium (say in 1970).
Figure 9.11b shows the industrys initial long-run equilibrium: when demand is D, output
is Q1, and price is P. Assuming that we start in long-run equilibrium, point A is then one
point on the long-run supply curve, LS. Figure 9.11a shows the representative firms positionsay that of New York University (NYU). It is producing its most profitable output, q1,
and making zero economic profit at price P.
To identify other points on the long-run supply curve, lets imagine that there is an unexpected increase in demand to D and work through the consequences for the industry. Demand for MBA education has grown over the past three decades for a number of reasons,
including more women joining the work force and seeking a business education, worldwide
economic growth and entrepreneurship (while domestic applications to U.S. MBA programs have increased slightly in recent years, international applications have boomed), and
the ever-advancing state of business management knowledge.
Reflecting the increased demand, existing business schools have an immediate short-run
responsethey increase output by expanding operations in their existing plants and increasing employment of variable inputs such as faculty and staff. The response appears as a
movement along the short-run industry supply curve, SS, from point A to point B. (Note
that the initial long-run equilibrium is also a short-run equilibrium. Every school is operating its existing plant at the appropriate levelwhere SMC equals Pso point A is also a
point on the short-run supply curve.) In the short run, price rises to P, and output increases
to Q2 as the industry expands along SS.
In Figure 9.11a, we can see what this adjustment means for NYU, a representative firm in
the industry. The higher price induces NYU to increase output along its short-run marginal
cost curve SMC and produce q2 where SMC P. (Recall that the summation of all the
schools SMC curves yields the SS curve.) At this point every business school is making an
economic profit (equal to area PEFG).
The industry, however, has not fully adjusted to the increase in demand; this position is
only a short-run equilibrium. The key to the long-run adjustment is profit-seeking by firms. In
the short-run equilibrium, existing schools are making economic profits. The return on investment in the MBA education market is now greater than in other industries. Whenever
economic profits exist in an industry, investors will realize that they can make more money
by moving resources into the industry. If entry is costless, as it is assumed to be in the case of
perfect competition, resources will be shifted into the MBA education market, thereby increasing its productive capacity.
Figure
Figure9.11
4.1
Dollars
per unit
249
Long-Run Supply in a Constant-Cost Industry

The long-run industry supply curve LS of a constant-cost competitive industry is
horizontal. Expansion of industry output does not bid up input prices. Thus, when
industry output expands from Q1 to Q3, firms cost curves do not shift and the long-run
average production cost per unit remains unchanged.
NYU Business School
Dollars
per unit
MBA Market
SMC
P
MR = AR
F
G
P
SS
SS
LAC
MR = AR
LS
D
D
0
q1 q2
(a)
Output
Q1 Q2 Q3
Output
(b)
Suppose that new schools enter the industry in an attempt to share in the markets profitability. The entry increases the industrys total output, which, in Figure 9.11b, is shown as
a rightward shift in the short-run supply curve. Recall that a short-run supply curve represents a fixed number of schools with given plants. When the number of firms increases, the
total output at each price is greater (there are more member firms with their corresponding
MC curves in the industry club)implying a shift in the short-run supply curve. As output expands in response to entry, price falls from its short-run level along D since the
higher output can be sold only at a lower price. This process of firms entering, total output
increasing, and price falling continues so long as the industry is generating a positive economic profit signal. In other words, a new long-run equilibrium emerges when schools are
once again making only a normal profitthat is, zero economic profit.
For a constant-cost industry the increased employment of inputs associated with expanding output occurs without an increase in the price of individual inputs. This means business
school cost curves do not shift. Thus, price must fall back to its original level before profits
return to a normal level: if price is higher than P economic profits will persist, and entry of
new schools will continue. Figure 9.11b shows the process of entry as a rightward shift in SS;
it continues until SS intersects the demand curve D at point C and price has returned to
its original level P.
Point C is a second point on the long-run supply curve LS. With demand curve D, industry output expands until it reaches Q3 and price is P. Each school once again makes zero
economic profit. In Figure 9.11a, NYU is again confronted with price P and can do no better
than cover its average cost by producing q1. The increase in industry output from Q1 to Q3 is
the result of entry by new schools.
A constant-cost competitive industry is characterized by a horizontal long-run supply curve.

Given time to adjust, the industry can expand with no increase in price along LS. The crucial assumption producing this result is that input prices are not affected by an industrys
size, so new schools can enter the market and produce at the same average cost as existing
schools. The term constant cost refers to the fact that schools cost curves do not shift as the
industry expands or contracts; it does not mean that each school in the industry has a horizontal LAC curve.
Increasing-Cost Industry
We can derive the long-run supply curve for an increasing-cost industry in the same way we
derived it for a constant-cost industry. We assume an initial long-run equilibrium; then the
demand curve shifts, and we follow the adjustment process through to its conclusion. Figure
9.12 illustrates this case. The initial industry long-run equilibrium price and quantity are P
and Q1, respectively. The typical firm, NYU, is producing q1 and just covering its costs,
shown by LAC, at the market price.
Once again, we assume an unexpected demand increase to D. The short-run equilibrium
is determined by the intersection of the short-run supply curve SS and D. Price rises to P,
and output increases to Q2. The representative school expands output along its SMC curve to
q2 and realizes economic profit. In the long run, the profit attracts resources to the industry.
Up to this point the analysis is identical to the constant-cost case. Moreover, the attainment of a new long-run equilibrium involves further expansion of industry output until economic profits return to zero, just as in a constant-cost industry. However, in an increasingcost industry the expansion of output leads to an increase in some input prices. To produce
more output, schools must increase their demand for inputs, and some inputs such as finance
Figure
Figure9.12
4.1
Dollars
per unit
Long-Run Supply in an Increasing-Cost Industry

For an increasing-cost competitive industry, the long-run supply curve LS slopes upward.
Expansion of industry output bids up some input prices. Thus, when industry output
expands from Q1 to Q3, firms cost curves shift upward from LAC to LAC and SMC to
SMC, and the output expansion leads to a higher long-run average production cost.
NYU Business School
Dollars
per unit
MBA Market
SS
SMC SMC
E
MR = AR
LAC
LAC
P
G
P
MR = AR
LS
C
P
MR = AR
SS
D
D
0
q1
q2
(a)
Output
Q1 Q2
(b)
Q3
Output
251
professors are assumed to be available in larger quantities only at higher prices. This situation contrasts sharply with that of the constant-cost case, where schools can hire larger
quantities of all inputs without affecting their prices.
Lets see how this difference affects the long-run adjustment process. At the short-run
equilibrium, positive economic profits lead to entry by new schools and an expansion in industry outputa rightward shift in the short-run supply curve. Increased industry output
now tends to reduce profits in two ways. First, as we saw earlier, the higher output causes
price to fall, which reduces profits. Second, the increased demand for inputs that accompanies the expansion in industry output leads to higher input prices. Higher input prices mean
higher production costs, which also reduce profits. Profits are thus caught in a two-way
squeeze as the industry expands. The two-way squeeze continues until economic profits
equal zero and a new long-run equilibrium is attained.
Figure 9.12 shows the two-way squeeze on economic profits. Starting with the shortrun equilibrium at point B (panel b), as new schools enter the market, SS shifts to the
right and price falls. Each schools horizontal demand curve shifts downward as price declines from P to P, and this decline reduces profits. At the same time, higher input prices
shift the firms cost curves upward, from LAC to LAC and LMC to LMC. In Figure
9.12a, NYUs profit (area PEFG) is squeezed from above by the decline in the product
price and from below by the rising unit cost of production. A rising cost and falling price
eventually eliminate NYUs economic profit. This occurs at price P, when NYU can just
cover its average cost by producing at the minimum point on LAC. Once profit is eliminated, there is no longer an incentive for industry output to increase further, and a new
long-run equilibrium is reached. In Figure 9.12b, SS has shifted rightward to SS, producing a price of P and an output of Q3. No further shift in the short-run supply curve will
occur, because economic profits have fallen to zero. Thus, point C is another point on the
long-run industry supply curve.
An increasing-cost competitive industry is characterized by an upward-sloping long-run supply
curve. This industry can produce an increased output only if it receives a higher price, because the cost of production rises (cost curves shift upward) as the industry expands. The
term increasing cost indicates that the cost curves of all schools shift upward as the industry
expands and input prices are bid up.
Decreasing-Cost Industry
A decreasing-cost competitive industry is one that has a downward-sloping long-run supply
curve. You might think that such a situation is impossible, and, in fact, some economists believe that it is. Others claim that a decreasing-cost industry is theoretically conceivable but
admit that it is a remote possibility. Because all agree that it is, at best, highly unusual, we
will deal with it only briefly here.
A decreasing-cost industry adjusts to an increase in demand by expanding output, just as
industries in the other two cases. In this instance, though, the expansion of output by the
industry in some way lowers the cost curves of the individual schools, leading to a new longrun equilibrium with a higher output but a lower price. The tricky part is to try to explain
why the cost curves shift downward. A downward shift in cost curves usually reflects a decrease in input prices, but for that to happen we have to explain how an increase in demand
for some input leads to an increased quantity supplied at a lower pricenot an easy task.
Although economists are in agreement about how rare decreasing-cost industries must
be, many noneconomists find the concept appealing. The reason for its appeal stems from
the observation that prices have declined sharply as output has expanded in some industries.
For example, color televisions, VCRs, and pocket calculators have all fallen in price in real
terms by 80 to 90 percent since they were first introduced. More recently, there have been
dramatic reductions in personal computer prices.
Before concluding that such evidence reflects decreasing-cost industries, we should explore some other possibilities. One common feature in these examples is that the price was
high when the product was first marketed but later fell dramatically. This suggests two possible explanations. First, the firm initially marketing the product is a monopoly and thus has
some pricing power. The price that the monopoly firm sets may be fairly high. As other firms
enter the market and begin to compete, price falls and output increases. This process suggests that what we may be seeing is the rise of competition from an initial monopoly position and not a movement along an industrys long-run supply curve.
Second, the passage of time after a products introduction makes technological improvements in production possible. Particularly in the case of new and complex products, technological know-how is frequently rudimentary when firms first market a product. With
experience in production over time, technological improvements may occur quickly. We
emphasize that technological know-how is assumed to be unchanged along a supply curve.
An improvement in technology shifts the entire supply curve to the right.
Consider Figure 9.13. In conjunction with demand, the long-run supply curve for
pocket calculators in 1970, LS70, determined a price of $300. This price was, in fact, the
approximate price of a calculator that performed only the basic functionswhen expressed in constant 1990 dollars. After 10 years firms developed methods that lowered
production cost, and the 1980 long-run supply curve was LS80. We assume that demand is
unchanged, although it was probably increasing over the period. This shift in supply led to
a price of $100 in 1980. Further technological improvements shifted the supply curve
once again, and price fell to $10 in 1990. The combination of lower prices and higher outputs over time resulted here from shifts in an upward-sloping long-run supply curve, not
from a slide down the negatively-sloped supply curve of a decreasing-cost industry. This
explanation of the phenomenon is especially appealing because new high-technology
items are known to show rapid improvements in technical knowledge in the first years of
their production.
Figure
Figure 9.13
9.13
Technological Advances Shift
the Long-Run Supply Curve
A price reduction and output increase over time
need not imply that the long-run supply curve has a
negative slope. Technological advances can occur
over time, which shift the entire long-run supply
curve downward, producing lower prices and higher
outputs.
Dollars
per unit
LS70
$300
LS80
$100
LS90
$10
0
D
Q1
Q2
Q3
Quantity of
pocket
calculators
253
These remarks do not rule out the possibility of decreasing-cost industries, but if they
exist, like the Giffen good case in demand theory, they are extremely rare. For all practical
purposes the increasing- and constant-cost cases are the relevant possibilities.
Application
9.6
The Bidding War for MIS

and Finance Professors
E ach
year, the countrys 700-plus business schools produce a total of 80,000 MBAs. The number of business schools has more than doubled and the number of
MBA graduates per year has increased 15-fold since 1970.
As the industry has expanded, certain inputs have been
bid up in price. Among the inputs that have been bid up
most in price are faculty in disciplines such as management information systems (MIS) and finance, in which
student enrollments have witnessed the largest increases.
For example, top new finance assistant professors garnered
starting salaries of more than $145,000 in 200252 percent higher than in 1997. Leading rookie MIS faculty
members were earning $130,000 in 200253 percent
more than in 1997. Annual salaries for the most respected
senior faculty members in both fields rose from roughly
$120,000 in the mid-1980s to well over $300,000 by 2002.
Of course, as the business school market has expanded, not all inputs have risen in price. Some have
remained constant or perhaps even decreased. For
example, schools applicant screening costs have been

reduced due to widespread reliance on the Graduate
Management Admissions Test (GMAT) as a candidatescreening mechanism.
On average, however, real input prices have increased since the 1960s. This suggests that the long-run
supply curve in the MBA education market is upwardsloping and provides at least a partial explanation for
the rise in annual tuition at private business schools.8
For example, annual MBA tuition at USC, a representative private business school, rose from $1,950 in 1970 to
$35,000 in 2002. The 2002 annual USC MBA tuition
equals roughly $7,550 in constant 1970 dollars. Although other factors (such as increased reliance by universities on their business schools to generate an
operating surplus) have certainly affected MBA tuition,
the growth of the MBA industry and the attendant increases in demand for industry inputs and the (real)
prices of those inputs surely also played a role.
This application is based on AACSB Newsline, Vol. 30 No. 3 (2000),

pp. 15.
Tuition at public business schools is generally controlled and subsidized by the state.
Comments on the Long-Run Supply Curve

An industrys long-run supply curve summarizes the results of a complex and subtle process
of adjustment. Once the underlying determinants of the supply curve are understood, it becomes a powerful tool of analysis. To use the supply curve correctly, however, we must have
a firm understanding of its underpinnings. To that end, we discuss several frequently misunderstood points.
1. We do not derive the long-run supply curve by summing the long-run marginal cost
curves of an industrys firms. Admittedly, every firm is producing where LMC P at each
point on LS, but as the industry adjusts along LS, firms are entering or leaving the market.
Therefore, we cannot sum firms LMC curves as we did in the short run. In addition, for an
increasing-cost industry the LMC curves themselves shift because of changes in input prices.
2. Just as we did with a demand curve, we assume certain things remain unchanged at all
points on the long-run supply curve. For one we assume technology is constant. An industry
expanding along its LS curve is using the same technical know-how but employing more
inputs to increase output. A change in technology causes the entire supply curve to shift, as
we saw in the example about pocket calculators discussed earlier. We also assume that at all
points on the long-run supply curve the supply curves of inputs to the industry remain
unchanged. Note that we are not assuming that the prices of inputs are unchanged but
rather that the conditions of supply remain constant. In a constant-cost industry, input
prices remain constant not because we assume them to be fixed but because the input supply
curves facing the industry are horizontal. In contrast, in an increasing-cost industry input
prices change because the input supply curves facing the industry are upward-sloping, a
condition that gives rise to an upward-sloping, long-run industry supply curve. When
relevant, other factors like government regulations or the weather must also be assumed
constant along the supply curve.
3. In reality, an industry is not likely to fully attain a position of long-run equilibrium.
Real-world industries are continually buffeted by changes. For instance, input supplies,
demand, technology, and government regulations frequently change. A long-run
adjustment takes time, and if underlying conditions change often, an industry will find itself
moving toward a long-run equilibrium that is continually shifting. Recognizing the reality
of frequent change, however, does not undermine the usefulness of the long-run equilibrium
concept. Although the industry may never attain a long-run equilibrium, the tendency for
the industry to move in the indicated direction is what is important, and the outcome is
correctly predicted by the theory.
4. Economic profit is zero all along a competitive industrys long-run supply curve. This
point is often misunderstood. For example, someone may say that when industry output
expands due to an increase in demand, the industrys firms benefit. We have seen, however,
that after an increase in demand, all firms will make zero economic profits in the long run.
There may be temporary economic profits in the short run, but the benefit is not permanent.
Who does benefit as we move along the long-run supply curve? Owners of inputs whose
prices are bid up by the industry-wide expansion. With a constant-cost industry no input
prices rise, and no input owners receive a permanent gain. If firms own some of the inputs
and thus gain as input prices increase, the gain accrues to them on account of their input
ownership and not because they are firms in an increasing-cost industry. It is also possible
that firms own none of the inputs whose prices rise. It may be, for example, that finance
professors whose wages go up as the MBA industry expands are the sole beneficiaries on
this markets supply side.
The tendency toward zero economic profit means that the rate of return on invested
resources will tend to equalize across industries. If invested resources yield an annual return
of 10 percent in the restaurant industry, which is comparable to earnings elsewhere, then
the restaurant industry is earning zero economic profit. Accountants, of course, generally
call the 10 percent return a profit, but economists regard the 10 percent return as a cost
necessary to attract resources to the restaurant industry.
5. In deriving the long-run supply curve, we assumed that a short-run equilibrium was first
established and then long-run forces came into play. Price first went up to a short-run high
and then came down to a long-run equilibrium level. The actual process of adjustment to
demand changes may not follow this pattern exactly. Identifying a short-run equilibrium
and then tracing out long-run effects is merely an expedient way of explaining the
determination of the final equilibrium. In fact, following a demand increase, price may
never reach its short-run level and may never go above the ultimate long-run level. This
can happen if, for example, firms anticipate the demand increase and make adjustments
before demand actually rises.
These remarks also suggest that care must be taken in using the short-run supply curve.
The short-run supply curve can be used to identify the initial effects of a change in de-
When Does the Competitive Model Apply?
255
mand under only two conditions: when the demand change is unexpected, and when it is
expected to be temporary. If firms anticipate the demand change, they can adjust their
scales of plants or move into or out of a market before the demand change actually occurs.
An unexpected demand change catches firms unaware, and they must operate temporarily
with whatever scales of plants they have at that time. If firms expect a demand change to
be temporary, they will not expand capacity or enter a market on the basis of conditions
they know will not persist. Thus, any output change will result from the firms utilizing existing plants more or less intensively, and a short-run analysis is appropriate.
Even when appropriate, a short-run analysis identifies only an industrys temporary resting
place, and subsequent long-run adjustments will continue moving the industry toward long-run
equilibrium. So in most supply-demand applications we generally use the long-run supply curve.
9.9
When Does the Competitive Model Apply?9

The assumptions of perfect competition are stringent and are likely to be satisfied fully in
very few real-world markets. Still, many markets come close enough to satisfying the assumptions of perfect competition to make the model quite useful. As we mentioned earlier,
product homogeneity and perfect information may not apply in the case of gasoline retailing, yet the industry may be very close to being perfectly competitive since representative
firms have only limited pricing power.
How close is close enough in terms of the assumptions of perfect competition being satisfied to make the model applicable? This question has no easy answer. For example, consider the assumption that there must be many small firms, an assumption that can be
readily verified: firms can be counted. The relationship between the number of firms and an
industrys competitiveness is not obvious. As we will see in Chapter 13, a relatively large
number of firms producing a homogeneous product may collude to fix prices above the competitive level.
Conversely, even if there are only a few firms in an industry, each firm may face a
highly elastic demand curve if the market demand curve is very elastic or if the elasticity
of supply by rival firms is high. For example, suppose that United is one of four suppliers
of air travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and that each of the four suppliers
accounts for one-fourth of the total air passenger travel between the two cities. Although
it is by no means a small player in this market, United may still face a highly elastic demand curve if when it raises its price, the rivals are quick to increase their output in response to Uniteds price increase. A high elasticity of supply by rival airlines can thus
severely limit Uniteds pricing power. In Chapter 13 we will explore in greater depth
how the output responses of rivals to a firms price changes affect the elasticity of the
firms demand curve.
With regard to other assumptions of perfect competition, such as free entry and exit of
resources, the competitive model frequently can be adapted to take the violations of these
assumptions into account. This adaptability is another reason why the model is important: it
can be extended to analyze the implications of specified departures from perfect competition. For example, suppose that an industry is in long-run equilibrium and demand increases, but new firms are blocked from entering the market. It is easy to show that output
will increase by less in this case, price will be higher, and economic profit will persist after
the industrys firms have made the appropriate long-run adjustment.
Consider as well the assumption that firms produce a homogeneous product. This assumption serves two purposes in the competitive model: it implies that a uniform price will
9
(page xxx).
prevail, and it affects the elasticity of demand facing a particular firm. What if the product
homogeneity assumption is not fully satisfied? A good example of this is provided by comparison-shopping surveys that find food prices higher in the inner city than in the suburbs.
For those who expect the competitive model to be an accurate description of reality, this result violates the uniform-price implication and suggests monopoly pricing in the inner cities.
Further investigation, however, reveals profits to be no higher for inner-city food stores than
for suburban markets, a result consistent with competition but not with monopoly.
What is going on? Basically, food sold in the inner city and food sold in the suburbs are
not homogeneous products. To city residents, food sold in the inner city is worth more than
food sold farther away. People are willing to pay something for the convenience of shopping
nearby, and when convenience costs the retailer something, the price of the same product
will differ. In comparison with costs in the suburbs, the cost of operating a food store in the
inner city is higher because rent, fire and theft insurance, and the salaries of personnel all
tend to be higher there. As a result, inner-city residents pay a higher price for shopping near
their homes.
Dropping the homogeneous product assumption means that differentials in price can
exist, but that is not often a serious problem and the competitive model can still be used.
Suppose, for example, that a city government passed a law that food prices in the inner city
cannot exceed prices in the suburbs. The competitive model applied to this setting would
predict that output (food sales) would fall in the inner city, shortages would exist, some food
stores would go out of business, and many inner-city residents would be worse off because no
food was locally available at the mandated lower pricethe familiar effects of a price ceiling. These predictions would, we suspect, be borne out in practice.
Finally, the assumption that firms and consumers have all the relevant information is
also necessary if markets are to behave exactly as the competitive model predicts. For example, if consumers are ignorant of price, even homogeneous products can sell for different
prices.
Dropping the assumption of full information does not mean, however, that we have to
replace it with one of complete ignorance. One of the results of real-world markets is
that firms and consumers have incentives to acquire the information that is important
for their economic decisions. Although they may not become fully informed, because
there are costs associated with acquiring information, we can easily suppose that they
will become well enough informed that the assumption of complete information is not
too great a distortion.
Economists have only recently begun to systematically analyze the acquisition of information and the way information costs influence the workings of markets. It is too
early to make any sweeping generalizations in this area, but we do not want to suggest
that the degree of information is irrelevant to the functioning of a market. Lack of information on the part of consumers may result in market outcomes that deviate significantly from the competitive norm. We will discuss issues related to information in more
detail in Chapter 14.
Summary
A perfectly competitive industry is characterized by a
large number of buyers and sellers, free entry and exit of
resources, a homogeneous product, and perfect information. Although few industries fully satisfy all these condi-
tions, the model of perfect competition remains quite useful in analyzing many markets.
Since a competitive firm sells a product similar to that
sold by many other firms, the firms output decision has a
Review Questions and Problems
257
negligible effect on the products price. Thus, the competitive firms demand curve can be approximated by a horizontal line at the level of the prevailing price.
For any firm, the most profitable output occurs where
the marginal cost of producing another unit of output just
equals the marginal revenue from selling it.
For a competitive firm with its horizontal demand
curve, price equals marginal revenue, so it maximizes profit
by producing where marginal cost equals price. Price, however, must be at least as high as average variable cost or
the firm suffers a loss in excess of total fixed cost.
If price does not cover AVC in the short run, the firm
will shut down; if price does not cover LAC in the long
run, the firm will go out of business.
The competitive firms short-run supply curve is its
marginal cost curve, so long as marginal cost exceeds average variable cost.
The assumption of profit maximization allows us to predict how a competitive firm will respond to changes in the
product price or in input prices. An increase in the product
price (with unchanged cost curves) will lead the firm to expand output as it moves up its marginal cost curve.
A reduction in one or more input prices will shift the
cost curves downward and so will lead the firm (with an
unchanged product price) to expand output.
The competitive industrys short-run supply curve is

the horizontal summation of the short-run marginal cost
curves (above AVC) of an industrys firms.
Because the law of diminishing marginal returns
implies that each firms marginal cost curve slopes upward,
the short-run industry supply curve also slopes upward.
In the long run, firms have sufficient time to alter
plant capacity and to enter or leave the industry. The
long-run supply curve takes these adjustments into account, with firms always guided by the search for profit.
Two shapes of the long-run industry supply curve are
most likely. First, an increasing-cost industry has an upward-sloping long-run supply curve, reflecting the increase in the prices of one or more inputs as the industry
expands.
Second, a constant-cost industry has a horizontal
long-run supply curve, reflecting a situation where the industry can expand its use of inputs without affecting their
prices.
At all points along a long-run supply curve, economic
profit is zero, because only when profit is zero is there no incentive for firms to enter or leave the industry.
Input supply curves and technology are assumed as
givens in deriving a long-run supply curve; changes in
these underlying factors shift the long-run supply curve.

Questions and problems marked with an asterisk have solutions
given in Answers to Selected Problems at the back of the book (page
xxx).
9.5. In Table 9.1, suppose that variable input prices increase by

50 percent. Will the firms profit-maximizing output level
change? Illustrate your answer with a graph.
9.1. What are the four assumptions of the perfectly competitive

model? Critics are fond of pointing out that few, if any, realworld markets satisfy all four conditions, implying that the competitive model has little relevance for real-world markets. How
would you respond to these critics?
9.6. If Conagra is a competitive firm, it will never operate

at an output where its average total cost curve is downwardsloping. True or false? Explain.
9.2. How can consumers of apartments in Atlanta have a

downward-sloping demand curve for apartments, and yet each
Atlanta rental property owner face a horizontal demand curve?
*9.3. Assume that a competitive firm has the short-run costs
given in Table 8.1. What is the firms most profitable output,
and how large is profit if the price per unit of output is (a) $15?
and (b) $26?
9.4. IBM should never sell its product for less than it costs to
produce. If costs to produce is interpreted to mean IBMs average total cost, is this correct? If it is interpreted to mean average variable cost, is the statement correct? If it is interpreted to
mean marginal cost, is the statement correct?
*9.7. The difference between price and marginal cost is the

amount of profit per unit of output, which the firm wishes to be
as large as possible. True, false, or uncertain? Explain.
9.8. Suppose that through laziness and/or sheer stupidity,
Densa Inc. always falls 10 percent short of producing the profitmaximizing output. Would a higher product price lead to greater
output? Would an increase in input prices lead to a reduction in
output? Does this result suggest why economists are not overly
concerned about whether the profit-maximizing assumption is
exactly correct? Explain.
9.9. Suppose that Keystone is a firm in the perfectly competitive ski resort business. If all of Keystones input prices unexpectedly double, and at the same time the product price doubles,
what will happen to Keystones profit-maximizing level of
output and its profit in the short run? In the long run? (Assume
that Keystone begins from a position of long-run equilibrium.)
9.19. As the industry moves from point B to C in Figure 9.11b,

how can the industrys output increase yet NYUs output fall?
9.10. Starting from a long-run equilibrium, trace the effects of

an unanticipated reduction in demand for (a) a constant-cost
industry and (b) an increasing-cost industry. Note: This process
is just the reverse of our derivation of the supply curves in Section 9.8, but it is very good practice to think through the
process.
9.20. The American Red Cross is a supplier to the perfectly

competitive domestic blood market. Unlike the other suppliers,
however, the Red Cross is strictly nonprofitits goal is to sell as
much blood as possible without making a profit. Given this goal,
is the Red Cross supply curve equal to its average variable cost
curve? Explain why or why not.
*9.11. In a constant-cost industry each firms MC curve is upward-sloping, yet all the firms togetherthe industryhave a
horizontal supply curve. Explain why there is no contradiction.
9.21. Suppose that the gasoline retailing industry is perfectly

competitive, constant-cost, and in long-run equilibrium. If the
government unexpectedly levies a five-cent tax on every gallon
sold by gasoline retailers, depict what will happen to the representative firms cost curves. What will the effects of the tax be in
the short run on industry output and price? Will the price rise by
the full five cents in the short run? In the long run? How would
your answers change if the industry was increasing-cost?
9.12. If each business school in the MBA education industry is

operating where LMC P, does it follow that the industry is in
long-run equilibrium? Explain.
*9.13. Suppose that the defense contracting business is perfectly competitive. In long-run equilibrium the price just covers
average production cost, and every contractor makes zero profit.
Thus, if the price goes down, even a little bit, due to a decrease
in government defense spending, all contractors will go out of
business. Discuss this statement.
9.14. Assume that the MBA education industry is constantcost and is in long-run equilibrium. Demand increases, but due
to strict accreditation standards, new firms are not permitted to
enter the market. Analyze the determination of a new long-run
equilibrium, showing the effects for a representative school as
well as for the market as a whole.
9.15. For a given increase in demand, will output increase by
more if the MBA education industry is constant-cost or increasing-cost? For a given decrease in demand, will output fall by
more if the industry is constant-cost or increasing-cost?
9.16. How would each of the following phenomena affect the
long-run supply curve of apples?
a. Workers in the apple industry form a union.
b. Consumers find out that apples cause cancer.
c. Hard-to-control bugs that eat apples invade from Mexico.
d. The government passes a law requiring apple trees to be
planted at least 60 feet apart.
e. The government sets a maximum legal price (price ceiling)
at which apples can be sold.
f. Immigration laws change to permit more itinerant apple
pickers to enter the country.
g. The government passes a minimum wage law for apple pickers.
9.17. Because agricultural demand is inelastic, a technological
advance that lowers production costs will reduce total revenue.
Thus, farmers have no incentive to introduce such a technique.
True, false, or uncertain? Explain.
9.18. Can all schools in the MBA education market face constant returns to firm scale and yet the industry have an upwardsloping long-run supply curve? If the MBA education industry is
constant-cost, what, if anything, does this imply about the returns to scale faced by the industrys individual schools?
9.22. Suppose that Mensa Inc. is a representative firm operating in a perfectly competitive industry. Mensas total cost of production, TC, is given by the equation TC 5,000 5q2, where
q is Mensas output. Based on this equation, Mensas marginal
cost is 10q. If the output price is $100, what is Mensas short-run
profit-maximizing output? How much profit does Mensa make at
that output?
9.23. Suppose that oil tankers fall into three classes: medium
(tankers capable of carrying between 10,000 and 70,000 deadweight tons DWT of crude oilapproximately 170 million gallons); large (tonnages between 70,000 and 175,000 DWT); and
super (tonnages over 175,000 DWT). The total tonnage in each
of the three classes is 53,000,000 in medium; 76,000,000 DWT
in large; and 171,000,000 in super. Finally, suppose that the
constant per-unit annual operating cost per deadweight ton is
$149 for medium; $107 for large; and $84 for super. Based on the
preceding information, graph the short-run supply curves for
each of the three tanker classes as well as for the overall oil shipping industry.
9.24. On October 13, 1993, as news of the potential merger
between Bell Atlantic and Tele-Communications Inc. spread,
hordes of investors beseiged brokers with buy orders for TCI.
The trouble was, TCI is the stock symbol for Transcontinental
Realty Investors. TCI shares soared nearly 30 percent before
the New York Stock Exchange caught on. It halted trading in
the stock and sent out an advisory warning to members of the
Exchange. Which assumption of perfect competition was violated by this episode?
9.25. Over the last two decades, the price of personal computers in real as well as nominal terms has declined markedly. Does
this mean that the personal computer industry is decreasing-cost
and that the long-run supply curve for personal computers is
downward-sloping? Explain why or why not.
9.26. Suppose that Continental Airlines fills only 60 percent of
the seats on average, on its Boeing 737 flightsa number 20
259
percent below the industry average. If Continental incurs incremental costs of $2000 per 737 flight wouldnt it do better
by scheduling fewer 737 flights and thereby increasing the percentage of seats filled on average per flight? Why or why not?
Explain.
9.28. In a competitive industry high prices in response to a

positive demand shock prevent higher prices. Explain whether
this statement is true false or uncertain in the context of the
competitive industry model developed in this chapter. To help
your analysis think what would happen if government policymakers precluded suppliers from raising their prices in the wake
of a positive demand shock (e.g. local suppliers of lumber were
prohibited from raising the price of their products in the wake of
a tornado ravaging a community and the need to begin rebuilding homes in the community).
9.27. In the market for cell phones the amount generated in

revenue per unit sold by Motorola roughly equals the associated
incremental cost. Given that Motorola is losing money on its
cell phone product line it would be wise for the company to
cease manufacturing such a product. True false or uncertain?
Explain.

Profit Maximazation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Profit Maximazation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Profit Maximazation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9

Profit Maximization in Perfectly

The Class A Common Stock

Short-Run Profit Maximization Using Per-Unit Curves

Operating at a Loss in the Short Run

Output Response to a Change in Input Prices

Zero Profit When Firms Cost Curves Differ?

Comments on the Long-Run Supply Curve

226 Chapter Nine Profit Maximization in Perfectly Competitive Markets

The Assumptions of Perfect Competition

standardized products that,

the assumption that firms

228 Chapter Nine Profit Maximization in Perfectly Competitive Markets

the observation that in

The Demand Curve Facing the Competitive Firm

Are American Executives

n recent years, the pay received by senior business

not have sufficient incentive to maximize the firms profit

The Demand Curve Facing the Competitive Firm

230 Chapter Nine Profit Maximization in Perfectly Competitive Markets

a firm that takes prices as

The Competitive Farms Demand Curve

Short-Run Profi t Maximization

the change in total

price times the quantity

Short-Run Profit Maximization2

Short-Run Cost and Revenue of a Competitive Firm

232 Chapter Nine Profit Maximization in Perfectly Competitive Markets

total profit ()

Short-Run Profit Maximization:

Short-Run Profi t Maximization

Short-Run Profit Maximization Using Per-Unit Curves

Short-Run Profit Maximization: Per-Unit Curves

234 Chapter Nine Profit Maximization in Perfectly Competitive Markets

The Importance of Thinking

This application is based on Great Ideas for Teaching Economics

To drive home the importance of focusing on the

Short-Run Profi t Maximization

Operating at a Loss in the Short Run

236 Chapter Nine Profit Maximization in Perfectly Competitive Markets

Operating at a Loss in the Short Run

a graph of the systematic

The Perfectly Competitive Firms

The Perfectly Competitive Firms Short-Run Supply Curve

The Competitive Firms Short-Run Supply Curve

238 Chapter Nine Profit Maximization in Perfectly Competitive Markets

The Method to Mothballing

verage variable cost curves tend to differ in

storage of aircraft began to fill up disproportionately in

The Competitive Firms Supply Curve

shovel, whose nominal price had been only $1 in the

The Perfectly Competitive Firms Short-Run Supply Curve

Output Response to a Change in Input Prices

How the Firm Responds to Input Price Changes

240 Chapter Nine Profit Maximization in Perfectly Competitive Markets

to MC. The rule for profit maximization in competitive markets, MC P, determines

the horizontal sum of the

The Short-Run Industry Supply Curve

Price and Output Determination in the Short Run