Abstract
The third Marshall–Hicks–Allen rule of elasticity of derived demand purports to show that labor demand is less elastic when labor is a smaller share of total costs. As Hicks, Allen, and then Bronfenbrenner showed, this rule is not quite correct, and actually is complicated by an unexpected negative relationship involving labor's share of total costs and the elasticity of substitution. The standard intuitive explanation for the exception to the rule presented by Stigler and referenced in many textbooks describes a situation rather different than the one described in the rule. The author presents an example that illustrates the peculiar negative impact of labor's share operating via the elasticity of substitution and then explains why the unexpected relationship between labor's share of total cost, the elasticity of substitution, and the elasticity of labor demand holds.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
