pre-1928, D1/4: 93; B.III.2.lxxii
The fundamental (“final statement”) definition given by Marshall of dim. ret. is a marginal one (p. 153).* Therefore, when Now, on p. 408 (last lines) and 409 (end of text) he says that “an inexperienced person ... would generally be condemned as having so over applied ploughing as to make it yield a rapidly diminishing return” (409) and that “if a farmer makes a bad distribution of his resources between ... he will get a markedly diminishing return from those elements ... which he has driven to excess” (408).
These statements are a consequence of the demonstration that at the maximum returns being “constant”, a small change in proportions will be attended by negligible diminution in returns ‒ while if the misdistribution of resources goes very far it will be attended by a sharp diminution of returns. This would be correct if referred to average returns from land (or from a costly fixed factor, calculated as described
). But as M. ass refers to marginal returns, this is definitely wrong. In fact marg. returns are as rapidly diminishing at the point of the optimum as anywhere else.
[* Although in the “provisional statement” on p. 150 it is doubtful whether it is marg. or average (whether “proportional” applies to a relation between increase of product and increase of factors ‒ i.e. marg. ‒ or to a relation between total input and its increase, and total factors + its increase ‒ i.e. average). But Edgew.'s interpretation (I, 63), the fundam. definition above and M's consistent use concur to marginal.]