On the Treatment of Fixed and Sunk Costs in Principles Textbooks: A Comment and a Reply
The authors reply to Colander's comment in this issue on their earlier article (Wang and Yang 2001). They emphasize the necessity to define fixed cost differently than sunk cost because fixed vs. variable costs and sunk vs. avoidable costs classify the total costs from two different perspectives. They show that it is logically incorrect and inconsistent if fixed cost is a synonym of sunk cost. To avoid confusion in pedagogy and education of economics, they argue that fixed cost should be correctly defined in principles textbooks, rather than corrected later at more advanced levels.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 35 (2004)
Issue (Month): 4 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/VECE20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/VECE20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jeduce:v:35:y:2004:i:4:p:365-369. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.