Question5 According to Andreoni and Levinson (2001), the sweeper analogy is an example of: None of the other options are correct Decreasing returns to scale No returns to scale Increasing returns to scale ResetMaximum marks: 1 Flag question undefined

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Examining the question, we need to evaluate the given options in the context of the sweeper analogy as described by Andreoni and Levinson (2001).
Option 1: 'None of the other options are correct.' This is a catch-all option that would only be true if all the other claims were false; however, there is at least one reasonable match among the remaining options, so this cannot be true on its own.
Option 2: 'Decreasing returns to scale.' Decreasing returns to scale would imply that increasing all inputs leads to a less-than-proportional increase in output. The sweeper analogy in the referenced literature does not align with a diminishing productive response to scale, so this option mischaracterizes the concept.
Option 3: 'No returns to scale.' This would mean that changing the scale of inputs does not affect output at all. The sweeper analogy is usually used to illustrate some response to scale, not a complete absence of any effect, so this option is inconsistent with typical interpretations.
Option 4: 'Increasing returns to scale.' Increasing returns to scale means that when inputs are increased, output increases by a more than proportional amount. The sweeper analogy in Andreoni and Levinson (2001) is used to illustrate how certain mechanisms or incentives can amplify effects as the scale grows, which fits the notion of increasing returns to scale.
In summary, each of the first three options describes a distinct pattern of how output responds to changes in input, but they do not capture the intended idea behind the sweeper analogy as accurately as the concept of increasing returns to scale does. The final option aligns with the idea that scaling up can lead to disproportionately larger outputs, which is the characteristic described by the increasing returns to scale concept.

Question5 According to Andreoni and Levinson (2001), the sweeper analogy is an example of: None of the other options are correct Decreasing returns to scale No returns to scale Increasing returns to scale ResetMaximum marks: 1 Flag question undefined

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Gale Furniture uses labor, capital, and wood as inputs in its production of office desks. When Gale Furniture doubles the quantity of labor, capital, and wood, the quantity of office desks doubles. Gale Furniture’s production process is characterized by

Indivisibility of capital causes _ returns to scale due to in the __ production model.

Question at position 12 Which of the following is NOT a reason for decreasing returns to scale?technology changegrowth of bureaucracyworker disaffectionmanagement command and control problems

Suppose General Motors could triple its production of Cavaliers by tripling its production facility for those cars. This is an example of

If bread is produced by using a constant returns to scale production function, then if the:

A firm's production function is Y=F(K,L). If the firm doubles both K and L, output less than doubles. This implies

10. When a firm doubles its inputs and finds that its output has more than doubled, this is known as: A. Economies of scale B. Constant returns to scale C. Diseconomies of scale D. A violation of the law of diminishing returns

The production function Y=K1/3L2/3−G exhibits________ returns to scale in K and L. (Assume G is a positive real number.)

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler

Question5 According to Andreoni and Levinson (2001), the sweeper analogy is an example of: None of the other options are correct Decreasing returns to scale No returns to scale Increasing returns to scale ResetMaximum marks: 1 Flag question undefined

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Gale Furniture uses labor, capital, and wood as inputs in its production of office desks. When Gale Furniture doubles the quantity of labor, capital, and wood, the quantity of office desks doubles. Gale Furniture’s production process is characterized by

Indivisibility of capital causes _________ returns to scale due to ________ in the __________ production model.

Question at position 12 Which of the following is NOT a reason for decreasing returns to scale?technology changegrowth of bureaucracyworker disaffectionmanagement command and control problems

Suppose General Motors could triple its production of Cavaliers by tripling its production facility for those cars. This is an example of

If bread is produced by using a constant returns to scale production function, then if the:

A firm's production function is Y=F(K,L). If the firm doubles both K and L, output less than doubles. This implies

10. When a firm doubles its inputs and finds that its output has more than doubled, this is known as: A. Economies of scale B. Constant returns to scale C. Diseconomies of scale D. A violation of the law of diminishing returns

The production function Y=K1/3L2/3−G exhibits________ returns to scale in K and L. (Assume G is a positive real number.)

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Making Your Study Simpler

Indivisibility of capital causes _ returns to scale due to in the __ production model.