Talk:Economies of scope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This is the first time I see the Economy of Scope concept restricted to "marketing an distribution" issues. In 1983 Goldhar and Jelinek published an article in Harvard Business Review and presented the Eco of Scope as "an efficiency wrought by variety, not volume" (vs Eco of scale), including production issues (i.e. same plant producing two types of cars). If one of you has some information about this marketing limitation, I would be interested to know more about it. Thanks.

This article [1] suggests that economics of scope exist based on weak cost complementarity, where the marginal cost of producing one good decreases when the quantity produced of another good increases. In other words, producing a greater scope of products results in cost savings. For example, a farm that produces corn might benefit from also producing cattle, because the cow manure could be used to fertilize the corn.


By putting all the links to Marketing topics on the right hand side it makes it appear that economies of scope is limited only to Marketing and doesn't apply to other areas such as production. I think we should remove this. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.86.9 (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Example[edit]

Who ever wrote this "Further economies of scope occur when there are cost savings arising from byproducts in the production process. An example would be the benefits of heating from energy production having a positive effect on agricultural yields." if they are insinuating an economy of scope for energy companies and AG due to global warming, is a fucking ignoramus douchebag. the entire world will get fucked over in general, The US will see little national change as the south loses yield to drought but the north gains. Canada and Greenland are the only 'winners' in yield of crops after global warming. It is down right disgusting to insinuate anyone would like to see the world burn so their crops have longer season.

fuck it i fixed it myself, i couldn't leave that borderline propaganda there. fuck the cunt who wrote that......dude, have you hugged a tree lately?