REVIEW ON THE OPINIONS ABOUT THE APLICATION OF DIMINISHING RETURNS LAW

International Journal of Sciences:
Basic and Applied Research
(IJSBAR)
ISSN 2307-4531
(Print & Online)
http://gssrr.org/index.php?journal=JournalOfBasicAndApplied
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
155
Review on the Opinions about the Aplication of
Diminishing Returns Law
Suwandia*
, Kuwat Subyantorob
a
Head of Study Program of Regional and Urban Planning of Post Graduate of Cendrawasih
University, Jayapura, Papua Indonesia
b
Lecturer bof Regional and Urban Planning Studies, Graduate Program of the University of Cendrawasih
Papua, Indonenesia
a
Email: Wandi1212@gmail.com
b
Email: Mndidik7@gmail.com
Abstract
The importance of human needs upon food causes an opinion that agricultural sector is a productive sector with
its surplus between the production and consumption results. The role of land is very essential for realizing the
fulfilment of food needs. The combination between land and other production factors will result in food.
The economic thinkers from Physiocracy and Classical School stated that a theory on land rent which initially
found in the framework of Turgot (1766) and David Ricardo (1821), as well as Thomas Robert Malthus (1820),
brought a consequence on the application of Diminishing Returns law in agricultural production.
Keywords: input; output; production elasticity; production function.
------------------------------------------------------------
* Corresponding author

International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR)(2016) Volume 29, No 1, pp 155-163
156
1.Introduction
The development of human population along with the passage of time must be balanced with the efforts in
increasing the number of food production whose minimum amount is equal with the percentage of human
population development, thus the food need per capita can be maintained. Quesnay [5] suggested that only in
agricultural sector, the surplus could be generated, or only in agricultural as well that the output exceeded the
input that used for producing the intended output.
Obviously, Quesnay’s statement describes that the relation between input and output, for the farmers as
producers of agricultural products, must be able to combine variable input and fixed input in such way in order
to create a surplus of agricultural products above the used input. A mathematical description of various
possibilities on technical production is stated as the production functions that give maximum output in physical
measurement of each input in its physical measurement as well.
Considering that there is only one variable input, and respectively, each unity of variable input will be added in
a certain number of other inputs, there will be some possibilities of relation, namely: (1) output increases in the
same amount, (2) output increases greater than earlier unities, and (3) smaller increase in production result than
earlier increases. Moreover, remembering that the balance between variable input and fixed still shows a greater
ratio with the addition of variable input units, then if the experiments are conducted from period to period, the
output resulted will show a greater increasing, and continued with smaller increasing until reaching its
maximum output. Such condition is regarded as the application of diminishing returns law.
In the event that the maximum output is already achieved, the addition of variable input consumption must be
stopped or no longer necessary, because it will precisely decrease the amount of output compared to the
previous period. Reference [1] stated that this law of diminishing returns showed a condition where comparisons
from the input were changed, thus the law of diminishing returns was regarded as the law of variable
proportion, namely the law of technology that depicted the physical relation between input and output.
2.Review of Literatur
2.1. Opinions From Physiocracy School
Two well-known figures from Physiocracy school are Francois Quesnay (1694-1774) and Jacques Turgot
(1721-1781 [2]. The term of Physiocracy was first used by Quesnay. Physiocracy comes from two words,
which are physic (nature) and cration or cratos (power). The Physiocrats suggested that this nature as God’s
creation was full of balance and harmony that spread anywhere and anytime. According to Quesnay, the law of
economy that is in accordance with the law of nature will make nature as the source of prosperity. Certainly, the
logical nature is the land along with water and air, as well as the sun, in human’s intervention to grow plants and
to breed animals in the activities of agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. From the said activities, human
beings may gain prosperity.
The land is able to produce output that exceeds the raw material and equipment used in the production.
Therefore, the land produces surplus for the society in a whole. Furthermore, agriculture must be modernized.

157
Quesnay argued that the investment in a new technology will be more beneficial. The agriculture must be more
capitalistic, thus it will increase the agricultural productivity or surplus produced by the agriculture. Surplus
from agriculture becomes the most essential result for the capital accumulation in agricultural field. Quesnay’s
opinion, stating that only land that is capable to produce, becomes the base of thought set forth in the form of
tableau economique as shown in figure 1 below:
Figure 1: Tableau Economique [7]
The above tableau was first compiled by Quesnay in 1759 [6]., depicting that the economy had three different
classes or sectors, which were (1) agricultural sector that produced food, raw material, and other crop plants, (2)
manufacturing sector that produced factory’s goods, and (3) the land owners that not produced any values, but
they received the rent as surplus payment over the land used for producing output. Quesnay realized that the
assumption of such input-output relation depended on the production techniques utilized in agriculture. In
Quesnay’s tableau, it assumes that all incomes are spent, and such expenditure is equally divided between
agricultural products and manufacturing goods. The productive class produces 5000 million francs. From the
Kelas Produktif
(Petani)
F. 5000 Juta
Para pedagang dan
industrial
Para Pemilik Tanah
F.3000 juta
F.2000 juta F.1000 juta
F.3000 juta
F.2000 juta
F.1000 juta
Kelas produktif
(petani)
F.3000 juta
Para Pemilik Tanah
Para pedagang dan
industrial
F.2000 juta

158
said 5000 million francs, 2000 million francs is out of distribution, which is kept by farmers for their own needs,
livestock, and seeds. Then, from the remaining 3000 million francs, it is divided into 1000 million francs that
distributed to the sterile class (traders and industries) for purchasing industrial products, while 2000 million
francs is sent to the land owner as the land rent. With 2000 million francs, the land owner uses it for buying food
amounting to 1000 million francs, meaning that it flows to the farmer itself, and another 1000 million francs is
used for purchasing industrial goods, thus the money is for the sterile class. Finally, tableau economique
illustrated above is explaining about a theory of static division, in which the entire community’s result and any
portion received by each group for time to time do not change. In such tableau, Quesnay clearly shows the
relation among various economic life.
In line with Quesnay’s thinking, Turgot views that the net product created by farmer is the only one source that
can sustain the life of other community’s groups, because the farmer will be able to hire labors. Such paid labors
gain salary as the reward for their services, given by the land owners. Surplus that resulted in agricultural field is
mostly enjoyed by the land owner as the land rent, which is in its turn; such land rent will be increasingly
accumulated. According to Turgot, the high and low level of the land rent is different, based on different fertility
of the land used for producing the output. This definition, by Turgot, is called as a tendency in agricultural
production that increasingly decreases, which is then in economic theory known as Law of Diminishing Return.
Although the agricultural production has multiple capital addition, it does not give physical production
according to the multiple capital addition. Even though in an absolute manner the physical production result or
output increases, but, relatively, the said increase in the balancing with the amount of capital used shows that the
output increases with decreasing percentage. Farmer in a good quality (with fertile soil) is always limited in
producing agricultural products. In the efforts to increase production, a larger land is necessary. But, because a
good quality land is limited for producing food, it uses a land with lower fertility. Such condition can admittedly
increase the physical result, but with lack of increases, the addition of larger land will arrive in another condition
where the addition of production is zero; it means that the output has reached its maximum.
2.2. Opinions From Classical School
Turgot’s thinking about the application of the law of diminishing returns in agriculture becomes a starting point
that grounding the thinking of Thomas Robert Malthus in1820 [2] about theory of population. According to
Malthus, the number of population and their life has a close relation with the availability of production
resources. Malthus explained about the existing relation between population growth and the availability of
production resources, in which the number of population will grow if the production resources grow also.
Remembering that the production resources are rare, Malthus states that there will be a condition where people
is unable to consume as in the normal life, which is called as Theory of under consumption. In this kind of
condition, the people’s consumption is at levels that fall below the needs of normal life.
The production resources in its increasingly rare condition, qualitatively and quantitatively, will be decreasing
the physical results, while in another side, the people continues to grow, both in an absolute manner and relative
terms, in the balancing of available resources. This will complicate the human’s life, unless if the population

159
growth arrives at its own limitation. That circumstance can happen naturally, such as in natural disaster,
contagious diseases, war and mass starvation, causing a massive death. However, it can also happen due to the
humans’ behavior itself, such as avoiding child’s birth through abstinence, prohibiting any actions that cause to
birth, including prohibition to have a sexual relationship.
The core of Malthus’ population theory at that time was really impressive among the global society as its
statement saying that the world population could grow faster than their ability in maintaining their level of life.
The population grows geometrically (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32), while food increases arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The
gloomy perspective of Malthus’ view, according to Malthus, could be calmed down with preventive actions,
such as through family planning and postponement of marriage period. According to Malthus, the application of
diminishing return in agricultural sector would occur when the land planted became larger. Each addition of
new land planted would produce in less food addition than the production gained from previous planting in one
land. A faster growth of population compared to the food increasing will cause less availability of food than it
shall be needed.
Another opinion from classical school that relates to agricultural sector is stated by David Ricardo (1772-1823)
[4] regarding the value and price. He said that the value and price of goods sourced from the work of human
labor. Later, this statement is underlying the theory of salary. Salary as a reward for human labor is required for
maintaining and continuing the life of labors. When the food production cost increases due to the higher
payment of land rent, the food price must also increase. This condition gives impact on the salary increasing,
because with higher salary, the labors will be able to buy food in higher price as well. In a consequence, the
labors will be also able to maintain their standard of life. The opinion by David Ricardo in the theory of goods
value and price and theory of salary and land-rent may lead to a thought on the application of diminishing
returns law in agriculture, as expressed by a thinker from Physiocracy school named Jacques Turgot.
2.3. The Law Of Diminishing Returns In Agriculture
The law of diminishing returns developed by David Ricardo from Classical school is started from the thinking
of Physiocracy school. The said law describes a relation between production result (output) and a variable
production factor (input) by assuming that the amount of another production factor is fixed. The law of
diminishing returns can be stated as follow: If the unities of a unit are respectively added to numbers of another
certain input, it will reach to a point where the additional production result per the unity of additional input will
decrease [1].
The law of diminishing returns in production theory is called as the law of diminishing productivity or the law of
variable proportions [3]. Such law explains that the production method does not change, but the changes are in
the proportions between variable input and fixed input. The physical relation between variable input X and
output Y is described in the production function. For example, the formula is: Y = X2- 1/36 X3
, in which Y is
showing Total Physical Product (TPP). The form of cubic production function is generally known as Classical
production function. From the form of said production function, it can be gained the function of Average
Physical Product (APP) and the function of Marginal Physical Product (MPP) as follow:

160
APP = X - 1/36 X2
and MPP = 2 X - 1/12 X2
. Those three function of Classical production are shown in figure 2
APP,MPP
Y
12
9
X
0 12 18 24
𝐴𝐴1
𝐵𝐵1
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 2𝑥𝑥 −
1
12
𝑥𝑥2
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝑥𝑥 −
1
30
𝑥𝑥2
Figure 2: Classical Production Function
The classical production function is divided into three stages or production areas. In stage I, as shown in figure
2, Total Physical Product (TPP) initially increases higher up to point A, then it moves down to point B. The
point A in production curve is called as inflection point, namely a point where production curve changes from
convex to concave toward horizontal axis in using input of 12 units and its total amount is 96 units. Therefore,
MPP curve reaches its peak on point A'. Through point A', MPP curve moves down, and APP increase until
APP reaches the maximum of point B' in using input of 18 units by producing 162 units of TPP. In stage I, MPP

161
> APP. When it is no longer using input of 18 units in stage I, APP will be maximum, and MPP=APP
amounting to 9 units. The first stage is irrational and also inefficient stage, because every unit in the addition of
variable input usage gives a larger production result than before. In this first stage, the balance for variable input
used is smaller than the fixed input provided. Stage II in APP decreases and APP > MPP ends at MPP = zero in
using input of 24 units and TPP reaches its maximum amounting to 192 units. Therefore, stage II is called as
rational and efficient stage in agricultural production. The second stage is started at APP with its maximum
amounting to 9 units in using input of 18 units and it ends when TPP reaches its maximum of 192 units in using
input of 24 units. Stage III is indicated by a decrease in TPP and MPP < 0. Stage III is regarded as irrational and
inefficient stage, because too much variable input are used compared to available fixed input, thus in this stage
III, the use of variable input and total physical output are reduced, and TPP will increase.
3.Economic Implications
The production function is very useful for determining the amount of variable input and the number of most
profitable output. Thus, knowledge about input and output price is very important. If the output has higher value
than zero, the use of variable input must be continued up to stage II. This is because the efficiency of variable
input that measured by APP is increasing in the first stage. For hypothetical production function as shown in
figure 2 and also the equation Y = X: - 1/36 X3, the use of variable unit is minimally in the amount of 18 units.
Although the variable input is free goods which can be obtained without any charges, the use of variable input
will be not conducted on third stage; the addition of variable input will precisely decrease total physical output.
Therefore, in figure 2, the use of variable input may not exceed 24 units.
At last, according to the economic view upon second stage of production function, including its limits, it can be
said as rational stage in production. So, in this stage, the farmer shall produce. However, in order to determine
exactly the amount of variable unit used, it must know the price for input and output.
4.The Law Of Diminishing Returns And Production Elasticity
The application of diminishing returns law in agricultural production will bring us to the determination of a
certain point that commencing the decrease of such result. In inflection point, MPP exactly reaches its
maximum, but it occurs in the first stage of production function, using 12 units of input. Meanwhile, APP starts
to move down (APP reaches its maximum) when using 18 units of input, and TPP decreases (TPP reaches its
maximum) when using 24 units of input. It shows to us that the point that commences the decreasing of such
result depends on the side which will be used, namely MPP, APP, or TPP. Therefore, Cassels suggested to use
production elasticity for such solution, measuring the degree of sensitivity in output changes that caused by the
changes of input uses. [3] 40) show with the following formula:
Ep = (percent change in output)/ (percent change in input) (1)
The said formula can be written as follow:
Ер = MPP/APP (2)

162
In stage I, MPP is greater than APP. Thus, Ep is greater than one. In stage II, MPP is lower than APP. Thus, Ep
is positive and smaller than one (1 > Ep >0). Meanwhile, in stage III, MPP is negative and Ep is also negative.
Based on the hypothetical equation of Y = X2 - 1/36 x3, the classical production function, in figure 2, and the
production elasticity can be exactly determined as follow:
Ep = MPP = 2X - 1/12 X2
= 72 X - З X2
(3)
APP X - 1/36 X2
36 X - X2
The point of diminishing returns occurs in the condition where Ер = 1, namely a condition (2) when MPP =
APP or the beginning of stage II in production. Based on the amount of production elasticity coefficient that is
equal to one, it can determine the amount of variable unit used when the diminishing return happens under the
following formula of production elasticity equation (3):
Ер = MPP/APP = 1
Ep = (72 X - З X2
)/(36 X - X2
) = 1
It means that:
72 X - З X2
= 36 X - X2
72 X - З X2
- 36 X + X2
= 0
36 X - 2 X2
= 0
2X(18 -X) = 0
18 -X = 0
X= 18
Thus, Ер = 1 occurs when using 18 units of variable input. In figure 2, it is shown that APP reaches its
maximum at point B'. The use of variable input will be always added until MPP = 0, and Ep = 0, when using 24
units of variable input. This is the end of stage II in the production. A relevant interval for the farmers in
production is in the use of efficient variable input from 18 units to 24 units, in which the coefficient of
production elasticity is positive and smaller than one (l>Ep>0).
5.Conclusions And Suggestions
5.1. Conclusions
a. The importance of agricultural sector is stated by an economic thinker from Physiocracy school,
namely Francois Quesnay (1694 - 1774) and Jacques Turgot (1721 - 1781), in which agricultural sector

163
is the only productive sector;
b. The fact that the source of land production is getting rare, while the population grows increasingly,
causes the birth of theory of under consumption, as stated by Thomas Robert Malthus;
c. Theory of land rent from Turgot, David Ricardo, as well as the concept of population from Thomas
Robert Malthus, is that if the land planted is getting larger, the diminishing return applies to
agricultural sector;
d. The concept of production elasticity is useful in determining the interval of relevant input usage in
agriculture.
5.2. Suggestions
a. In the agricultural field, it is necessary to determine the form of input-output physical relation in
production function for knowing the use of relevant input in the production;
b. Knowledge on the input and out price is necessary for determining the amount of the most profitable
input used.
References
[1]. Bishop,C.E.,Toussaint, W.D., 1979. Pengantar Analisa Ekonomi Pertanian, translated by Faculty of
Economy tem of UGM, Penerbit Mutiara, Jakarta. Chapter 4;
[2]. Djojohadikusumo, S., 1991. Perkembangan Pemikiran Ekonomi, Buku I, Yayasan Obor Indonesia,
Jakarta. Chapter l and Chapter 2;
[3]. Doll, J.P., Orazem, F., 1984. Production Economics Theory with applications, Krieger Publishing
Company, Malabar, Florida. Chapter 2;
[4]. Landreth, H., Colander,D.C., 1994. History of Economic Thought, Houghton Mifflin Company,
Toronto. Chapter 3 and Chapter 5;
[5]. Pressman, S., 2002. Lima Puluh Pemikir Ekonomi Dunia, Murai Kencana, Jakarta. Pages 18-47.
[6]. Rosyidi, S., 2006, Pengantar Teori Ekonomi Pendekatan kepada Teori Ekonomi Mikro & Makro, P.T.
Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta. Chapter 5;
[7]. Zimmerman L. J., 1962. Sejarah Pendapat-Pendapat Tentang Ekonomi, translated by Siagian, Penerbit
Sumur Bandung, Jakarta. Chapter and Chapter 2.

REVIEW ON THE OPINIONS ABOUT THE APLICATION OF DIMINISHING RETURNS LAW

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to REVIEW ON THE OPINIONS ABOUT THE APLICATION OF DIMINISHING RETURNS LAW (20)

More from Suwandi, Dr. SE.,MSi (16)

Recently uploaded (20)

REVIEW ON THE OPINIONS ABOUT THE APLICATION OF DIMINISHING RETURNS LAW