Hence, substituting for dp from (13), we have
dv
dp
-vmx
S - xp
S — (x — x)xm — xp
< 0.
Similarly, assuming p > p and vm > 0, it is found that
dv
dx
vm
dp
, (x
dx
— x) + (p — p)
= vm(p — p)
S — xp
S — (x — x)xm — xp
> 0.
Proposition 5
Differentiating (17) w.r.t. p yields
dP x + χ p
dp x1 x1
p + (1
x) dp
x17 j dpi
(25)
dP
dx)
a
x1
— —
(p — p) + [α-p—p ⅛ + (1
x1 p p
x d j dp
x1 dx)
(26)
Substituting for dp from (13) and using x = xs > x1, we obtain
dP αXx £aS1 + (1 — α)S2 — (1 — α)x2xm — xp — ax((xs — x1)]
dpi α[S1 — x1m(x1 — x)] + (1 — α)(S2 — x2x‰) — xp
Similarly, substituting for dp from (14), we have
29
More intriguing information
1. TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF RESEARCH ON WOMEN FARMERS IN AFRICA: LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS; WITH AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY2. Der Einfluß der Direktdemokratie auf die Sozialpolitik
3. Are combination forecasts of S&P 500 volatility statistically superior?
4. The name is absent
5. The urban sprawl dynamics: does a neural network understand the spatial logic better than a cellular automata?
6. The name is absent
7. Indirect Effects of Pesticide Regulation and the Food Quality Protection Act
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. The Effects of Reforming the Chinese Dual-Track Price System