This paper examines several core microeconomic concepts. It begins by distinguishing economic costs from accounting costs, explaining how explicit and implicit costs differ and why a firm may continue operating despite an apparent accounting loss. The paper then applies the marginal decision rule to production factor choices, using Mexico's maquiladora industry as a case study of capital- versus labor-intensive methods and their benefits to the U.S. economy. Finally, it describes the characteristics of a perfectly competitive market, analyzes long-run profit outcomes for perfectly competitive firms, and compares those outcomes to the sustained profit advantages enjoyed by monopolies.
Economic costs differ from accounting costs in important ways. The clearest way to understand this difference is to break economic costs into their two components: explicit costs and implicit costs.
Explicit costs are those that require a direct outlay of money, such as paying employees, paying rent, and paying utility bills. These are the tangible, recordable expenditures that a business makes in the course of its operations.
Implicit costs, on the other hand, represent foregone opportunities — the potential profit or benefit one might have gained by choosing a different course of action. For example, consider someone who decides not to pursue a conventional job in order to start a home-based business. The conventional job might have provided a certain income that this person must now forgo. The income given up represents an implicit cost: the value of the time, money, and talents invested in the alternative path rather than the one not taken.
Accounting costs, by contrast, focus solely on explicit costs. Bookkeeping tracks the flow of funds that a business records and is a mathematical process that calculates and summarizes the financial results of business activity. These summaries serve governments, businesses, shareholders, and potential investors who need to assess whether a venture is financially viable. Because accounting costs ignore implicit transactions, they present only part of the economic picture.
Ignoring implicit costs can, in practice, obscure the fact that a business is losing rather than gaining economically. Consider a person who invested $55,000 in an economics course, then dropped out of college — retaining the debt — to pursue a business that generated a profit of $3,000. The accountant, reviewing only explicit costs and revenues, reports the business as a success. Yet if implicit costs were included in the assessment, the firm would be seen as operating at a loss.
Despite this, some business owners choose to continue operating even when implicit costs indicate a net loss. One reason is psychic income — the personal satisfaction or fulfillment derived from running one's own enterprise. Even when implicit benefits are small and implicit costs suggest a loss, the psychological rewards of ownership may be sufficient motivation to continue.
A business owner may also take a long-term view, recognizing that current costs and opportunities are variable and that conditions can improve over time. Additionally, the firm may be passing through a stage governed by the Law of Diminishing Returns, in which fixed costs such as rent and utilities weigh heavily on a young business. Once past this stage, the firm may move toward greater efficiency and profitability (Professional Education Organization International, Chapter 3: Production Costs).
"Marginal rule applied to maquiladora production choices"
"Defining traits and long-run profits in perfect competition"
"Why monopolies sustain profits over competitive firms"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.