Module III·Article I·~9 min read
Production in the Short Run and Long Run
Costs, Production, and Profit Maximization
Turn this article into a podcast
Pick voices, format, length — AI generates the audio
Short Run and Long Run: Definitions
In economic theory, the distinction between the short run and long run is not a matter of calendar time (days, months, years), but a matter of resource flexibility. This difference is fundamental for understanding how firms make production decisions.
Short run is the period during which at least one factor of production is fixed (cannot be changed). Usually, capital is the fixed factor: the size of the plant, the amount of equipment, the area of retail space. Labor is variable: the firm can hire additional workers or reduce their number.
Long run is a period long enough for all factors of production to become variable. The firm can build a new plant, install new equipment, change the scale of production, enter or exit the industry.
The duration of the "short run" and "long run" varies depending on the industry. For an ice cream stand, the "long run" may be several weeks (rent a new space, buy new equipment). For a petrochemical plant — 5–10 years (building a new plant is a multi-year project). For a nuclear power station — 15–20 years.
Practical Example: Bakery
Imagine a small bakery with one oven (fixed capital). In the short run, the bakery can:
- Hire additional bakers (variable labor)
- Purchase more flour and yeast (variable materials)
- Work extra shifts
But it cannot in the short run:
- Install a second oven (requires time and investment)
- Expand its premises
- Relocate
In the long run, all these restrictions are lifted: the bakery can rent larger space, buy multiple ovens, automate processes.
Production in the Short Run: Law of Diminishing Returns
Total, Average, and Marginal Product
When a firm increases the use of a variable factor (usually labor) with a fixed quantity of another factor (usually capital), three key indicators arise:
- Total Product (TP) — total output produced with a given amount of labor
- Average Product (AP) = TP / L (total product divided by number of workers) — shows the average productivity of one worker
- Marginal Product (MP) = ΔTP / ΔL — extra output from hiring one more worker
Numerical Example: Cake Production
Consider a bakery with one oven (fixed capital), hiring different numbers of bakers:
| Bakers (L) | Total Product (TP) cakes/day | Marginal Product (MP) | Average Product (AP) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | — | — |
| 1 | 10 | 10 | 10.0 |
| 2 | 25 | 15 | 12.5 |
| 3 | 45 | 20 | 15.0 |
| 4 | 60 | 15 | 15.0 |
| 5 | 70 | 10 | 14.0 |
| 6 | 75 | 5 | 12.5 |
| 7 | 75 | 0 | 10.7 |
| 8 | 70 | -5 | 8.8 |
Data Analysis:
The 1st baker produces 10 cakes—alone, without help, he does everything himself.
The 2nd baker adds 15 cakes (MP = 15 > 10). Why did the marginal product increase? Because two bakers can divide labor: one mixes dough, the other handles cream and decoration. Specialization increases efficiency.
The 3rd baker adds another 20 cakes (MP = 20). Further specialization: one—dough, another—baking, third—decorating. This is increasing returns from the variable factor.
The 4th baker adds only 15 cakes (MP = 15 < 20). Diminishing returns begin. There’s only one oven, and four people begin to get in each other's way: they have to wait their turn at the oven, workspace becomes cramped.
The 5th and 6th bakers add less and less (MP = 10, then 5). The resource of the fixed factor (the oven) is increasingly "overloaded".
The 7th baker adds 0 cakes — literally cannot do anything, because all workstations are occupied.
The 8th baker has a negative marginal product (MP = -5). He not only does not help, but gets in the way: people bump into each other, get confused, quality drops. The total product decreases.
Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns
The law states: as the quantity of one variable factor increases while other factors are fixed, the marginal product of the variable factor sooner or later begins to decline.
Note the phrasing: "sooner or later". At first, marginal product can rise (increasing returns—specialization and division of labor), but after a certain point it inevitably starts to decrease.
This law is a short run phenomenon, due to the presence of a fixed factor. If the bakery could add another oven (long run), diminishing returns would not occur so quickly.
Real-World Examples of the Law of Diminishing Returns
Agriculture: A farmer with 10 hectares of land (fixed factor) starts hiring workers. The first workers sharply increase crop yield (each works their own plot). But after a certain point, additional workers contribute less and less: they lack space, tools, perform less productive tasks. This is one reason why the food problem cannot be solved simply by increasing the number of workers in agriculture—the land is limited.
IT company: A team of developers works on a project. The first 5 programmers effectively divide tasks. But when hiring 50 programmers for the same project, productivity of each additional developer drops: coordination costs grow, meetings, code integration. Known as Brooks' Law in IT: "Adding people to a late project makes it later."
Restaurant: The restaurant has limited kitchen and dining space. The first waiters improve service. But when hiring 20 waiters for a dining room with 15 tables, they begin to get in each other's way, causing confusion and lowering service quality.
Production in the Long Run: Returns to Scale
In the long run, all factors of production are variable, and the firm can change the scale of production. The key question: what happens to output when a firm proportionally increases all factors of production?
Three Types of Returns to Scale
1. Increasing Returns to Scale
Increasing all factors of production N times results in output increasing by more than N times. For example: doubling labor and capital → output triples.
Reasons:
- Technical economies: large equipment is often more efficient. A tanker twice as large transports not two, but three–four times as much oil, because volume grows faster than surface area (and thus, material cost).
- Labor specialization: at a large plant, each worker can specialize in a narrow operation, increasing skill and speed. At the Toyota factory, a worker on the assembly line performs a single operation hundreds of times a day, achieving virtuosity.
- Bulk purchasing economies: large firms get discounts when buying big volumes of raw materials. Walmart, purchasing millions of items, negotiates prices far lower than a small store.
2. Constant Returns to Scale
Increasing all factors N times → output increases exactly N times. Doubling resources → doubling output.
3. Decreasing Returns to Scale
Increasing all factors N times → output increases by less than N times. Doubling resources → output grows by only 1.5 times.
Reasons:
- Coordination problems: managing a giant organization is harder. Information is distorted as it passes through many levels of hierarchy. Decisions are made more slowly.
- Bureaucratization: growth in rules, procedures, reporting. Initiative of workers is suppressed.
- Motivation: in a small firm, everyone sees the result of their work. In a giant corporation, an individual worker can feel like a "cog," which reduces motivation.
Examples from Real Business
Amazon and Increasing Returns to Scale. Amazon demonstrates powerful increasing returns to scale: every additional customer hardly increases expenses for server infrastructure or logistics network (fixed costs have already been incurred), but brings additional revenue. That is why Amazon operated at a loss for years, scaling up—knowing that, when it reached critical mass, its advantage would become insurmountable.
General Motors and Decreasing Returns to Scale. By the 2000s, GM had become so large and bureaucratized that it couldn't quickly respond to market changes. Multi-tier hierarchy slowed decision-making, innovation was stalled. In 2009, the company went bankrupt, despite its enormous scale—or, perhaps, partly because of it.
§ Act · what next