ELASTICITY OF SUPPLY AS A DETERMINANT OF DISTRIBUTION 109 
received by the factor which has improved its bargaining posi- 
tion, then the less will be its ultimate gains. For a gain of a 
given percentage in the unit return to this factor will cause a loss 
of more than this percentage in the unit return of the other, 
This in turn will cause the supply of the factor which has experi- 
enced the loss to contract more rapidly than it would had the 
relationship between the shares been one of equality. This greater 
contraction in the supply would, of course, tend towards estab- 
lishing the ultimate equilibrium nearer the original situation. 
But it would not restore the original equilibrium since the initial 
shift in bargaining powers and in the quantity of the one factor 
must be remembered. 
Conversely, the smaller the share of the total product received 
by a factor, the more per unit it can secure (other things being 
equal) from an increase in bargaining power. This is so because 
the smaller its share, the less is the decrease in the price per unit 
of the other factor, and the less consequently is the diminution in 
the quantity of this second factor. 
When the supply curve of one factor is negatively and that of 
the other factor positively inclined, then if the former has the 
smaller share of the total product and if the positive factor, or 
that with the larger share, improves its bargaining position, the 
latter will gain more than if the shares were originally equal. For 
a five percent unit increase to the positive factor would mean a 
ten percent decrease to the negative factor. If both their elas- 
ticities were originally equal to unity, then the supply of the 
negative factor would increase by ten instead of by five percent, 
while that of the positive factor would grow by only five percent. 
The resultant increased marginal productivity of the positive 
factor and the decrease for the negative factor would alter the 
situation still more in favor of the former. 
If, however, the original elasticity of the negatively inclined 
factor had been but .5, then after the initial change in bargain- 
ing power, there would be no further changes since the quantities 
of each would now expand in the same ratio. But this, it should 
be noted, would give a result more advantageous to the positive 
factor than that which would have obtained had the shares been 
equal. For then the supply of the positive factor would have 
increased more rapidly than that of the negative factor, so that 
the final equilibrium would give a unit return to the former