Abstract
I will comment on the comments by the groups of three reviewers separately. First of all, I will thank all three groups providing a first round of reports in order for me to get rid of obvious mistakes. In the second round the reviewers were free to comment on the qualities of my revised version. I am not to change my revised paper when giving my comments on what would be honest reports on the quality of my final version. However, the reviewers will not have a go at my rejoinders to comments according to the symposium rules. I keep the section numbering of the authors in order to make it easier to identify the arguments.
Highlights
Acknowledging that I and Murty and Russell (2002), Murty, Russell and Levkoff (2012), followed by several other papers, have developed a model with two separate production functions, Rolf and Shawna leave the discussion of separate production functions to Murty and Russell
Instead they focus on the discussion of the ‘Shephard inspired approach’ and its development since the 1980’s with focus on specification and linkage of production and abatement nodes in a network, and how the network model can be regarded equivalent to multi equation models
Concerning the single equation model inspired by Shephard (1970) I do not insist that the Frisch inspired factorially determined multi output production function is necessary, but it is sufficient to capture joint production of the type that production of bads is unavoidable
Summary
Concerning the single equation model inspired by Shephard (1970) I do not insist that the Frisch inspired factorially determined multi output production function is necessary, but it is sufficient to capture joint production of the type that production of bads is unavoidable. To split into two functions a process that happens simultaneously is done in order to state that the amount of the good output is independent of the amount of the bad output and vice versa. The authors say that “P1 could represent the subtechnology producing good output, and P2 the subtechnology producing unintended bad output”. This is not compatible with what I define as joint production. In my understanding of unavoidable joint production of bads we must have x0 = x01 = x02 (valid for xM0); by definition of technical jointness (Frisch 1965) you cannot produce the good outputs without simultaneously producing the bads
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
