Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

In general, uncompensated cross-price effects are not equal. That is, \\[\frac{\partial x_{i}}{\partial p_{j}} \neq \frac{\partial x_{j}}{\partial p_{i}}.\\] regardless of relative prices. (This is a generalization of Problem \(6.1 .)\)

Short Answer

Expert verified
Based on the above analysis and solution, the short answer would be: The assertion that uncompensated cross-price effects are not equal is generally true, as the cross-price effects depend on the responsiveness of one good's demand to the price change of another good, and this responsiveness may vary between goods. However, it is essential to consider the specific context and functional forms of the demand functions when analyzing these relationships, as the inequality may not hold true in every situation.

Step by step solution

01

1. Write down the demand functions for two goods.

Let's consider the demand functions for two goods, \(x_i\) and \(x_j\). These demand functions represent the quantity demanded of goods \(i\) and \(j\) respectively, and depend on their respective prices \(p_i\) and \(p_j\). The demand functions can be written as: $$ x_i = x_i(p_i, p_j) $$ $$ x_j = x_j(p_i, p_j) $$
02

2. Calculate the partial derivatives of the demand functions with respect to prices.

Next, we need to find the cross-price effects by calculating the partial derivatives of the demand functions with respect to the other good's price. This will give us: $$ \frac{\partial x_i}{\partial p_j} = \frac{\partial x_i(p_i, p_j)}{\partial p_j} $$ and $$ \frac{\partial x_j}{\partial p_i} = \frac{\partial x_j(p_i, p_j)}{\partial p_i} $$
03

3. Compare the cross-price effects derivatives.

Now we need to compare the cross-price effects by examining if the inequality holds true: $$ \frac{\partial x_i}{\partial p_j} \neq \frac{\partial x_j}{\partial p_i} $$ We can't determine if the inequality holds true for every possible pair of demand functions, as it depends on the specific functional forms and the price changes involved. However, typically in economics, it is reasonable to assume that this inequality holds true in general, since the cross-price effects depend on the responsiveness of one good's demand to the price change of another good and this responsiveness may vary between goods. In conclusion, the given assertion is generally correct for most cases, but it may not hold true in every specific situation. It is important for students to understand the concept of cross-price effects and consider the specific context when analyzing these relationships.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Uncompensated Cross-Price Elasticity
When discussing the concept of uncompensated cross-price elasticity, we are looking at how the demand for one good changes in response to a change in the price of another good. This is a vital concept in understanding how goods are interrelated in a market. Its calculation is done using partial derivatives, reflecting the rate of change of one variable when another one changes, holding everything else constant.

Crucially, this form of elasticity is called uncompensated because it doesn't account for changes in consumer income or any other adjustments in the market, focusing purely on the price change and demand reaction aspects. When you calculate these elasticities, you might notice that they are not necessarily equal for two goods, indicating an asymmetric relationship in how the demand for each good reacts to the other's price changes.
  • Uncompensated: Ignores income changes.
  • Cross-Price: Involves two different goods.
  • Elasticity: Measures responsiveness of demand.
Demand Functions
Demand functions are mathematical representations that calculate the quantity of a good that consumers will purchase at various prices and under specific conditions. Two goods have their own distinct demand functions reflecting consumers' preferences and the market structure.

Consider two goods, where the demand function of good 'i' is shown as \(x_i = x_i(p_i, p_j)\). This means that the quantity demanded of good 'i' depends on its own price \(p_i\) as well as the price of good 'j', \(p_j\). Similarly, the demand for good 'j' can be expressed as \(x_j = x_j(p_i, p_j)\).
  • Demonstrates consumer choices.
  • Includes prices of both goods.
  • Utilizes distinct functions for each good.
Partial Derivatives
Partial derivatives are a mathematical tool used to understand how a function changes in relation to one of its variables while keeping other variables constant. This is crucial in analyzing cross-price effects as it helps determine the responsiveness of the demand for a good with respect to the price of another.

In terms of demand functions, we compute the partial derivative like \(\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial p_j}\), which indicates how the demand for good 'i' will change with a unit increase in the price of good 'j'. It's a crucial step in economic analysis that clarifies relationships between products in a market.
  • Helps isolate effects of one variable.
  • Crucial for understanding interaction between goods.
  • Used extensively in economic analysis.
Price Responsiveness
Price responsiveness refers to how sensitive the quantity demanded or supplied of a good is to changes in its price or the price of another good. In the context of cross-price elasticity, it highlights how the demand for one good responds to price changes in another, which can be critical for setting pricing strategies and understanding market dynamics.

For instance, in a competitive market, if the price of a complementary good increases, the demand for the related good might decrease due to reduced consumer interest. Conversely, if one good is a substitute for another, a price increase in one may lead to a rise in demand for the other. Understanding these dynamics helps businesses and consumers make informed decisions.
  • Reflects demand sensitivity to price changes.
  • Varies with substitutes or complements.
  • Key in setting prices and market strategies.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Ms. Sarah Traveler does not own a car and travels only by bus, train, or plane. Her utility function is given by \\[\text { utility }=b \cdot t \cdot p,\\] where each letter stands for miles traveled by a specific mode. Suppose that the ratio of the price of train travel to that of bus travel \(\left(p_{t} / p_{b}\right)\) never changes a. How might one define a composite commodity for ground transportation? b. Phrase Sarah's optimization problem as one of choosing between ground \((g)\) and air \((p)\) transportation. c. What are Sarah's demand functions for \(g\) and \(p ?\) d. Once Sarah decides how much to spend on \(g\), how will she allocate those expenditures between \(b\) and \(t\) ?

Example 6.3 computes the demand functions implied by the three-good CES utility function \\[U(x, y, z)=-\frac{1}{x}-\frac{1}{y}-\frac{1}{z}.\\] a. Use the demand function for \(x\) in Equation 6.32 to determine whether \(x\) and \(y\) or \(x\) and \(z\) are gross substitutes or gross complements. b. How would you determine whether \(x\) and \(y\) or \(x\) and \(z\) are net substitutes or net complements?

Hard Times Burt buys only rotgut whiskey and jelly donuts to sustain him. For Burt, rotgut whiskey is an inferior good that exhibits Giffen's paradox, although rotgut whiskey and jelly donuts are Hicksian substitutes in the customary sense. Develop an intuitive explanation to suggest why an increase in the price of rotgut whiskey must cause fewer jelly donuts to be bought. That is, the goods must also be gross complements.

Details of the analysis suggested in Problems 6.5 and 6.6 were originally worked out by Borcherding and Silberberg (see the Suggested Readings) based on a supposition first proposed by Alchian and Allen. These authors look at how a transaction charge affects the relative demand for two closely substitutable items. Assume that goods \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) are close substitutes and are subject to a transaction charge of \(t\) per unit. Suppose also that good 2 is the more expensive of the two goods (i.e., "good apples" as opposed to "cooking apples". Hence the transaction charge lowers the relative price of the more expensive good [i.e., \(\left.\left(p_{2}+t\right) /\left(p_{3}+t\right) \text { decreases as } t \text { increases }\right] .\) This will increase the relative demand for the expensive good if \(\partial\left(x_{2}^{c} / x_{3}^{c}\right) / \partial t > 0\) (where we use compensated demand functions to eliminate pesky income effects). Borcherding and Silberberg show this result will probably hold using the following steps. a. Use the derivative of a quotient rule to expand \(\partial\left(x_{2}^{c} / x_{3}^{c}\right) / \partial t\). b. Use your result from part (a) together with the fact that, in this problem, \(\partial x_{i}^{\epsilon} / \partial t=\partial x_{i}^{c} / \partial p_{2}+\partial x_{i}^{\epsilon} / \partial p_{3}\) for \(i=2,3,\) to show that the derivative we seek can be written as \\[\frac{\partial\left(x_{2}^{c} / x_{3}^{c}\right)}{\partial t}=\frac{x_{2}^{c}}{x_{3}^{c}}\left[\frac{s_{22}}{x_{2}}+\frac{s_{23}}{x_{2}}-\frac{s_{32}}{x_{3}}-\frac{s_{33}}{x_{3}}\right],\\] \(\text { where } s_{i j}=\partial x_{i}^{c} / \partial p_{j}.\) c. Rewrite the result from part (b) in terms of compensated price elasticities: \\[e_{i j}^{c}=\frac{\partial x_{i}^{c}}{\partial p_{j}} \cdot \frac{p_{j}}{x_{i}^{c}},\\] d. Use Hicks' third law (Equation 6.26 ) to show that the term in brackets in parts (b) and (c) can now be written as \\[\left[\left(e_{22}-e_{23}\right)\left(1 / p_{2}-1 / p_{3}\right)+\left(e_{21}-e_{31}\right) / p_{3}\right].\\] e. Develop an intuitive argument about why the expression in part (d) is likely to be positive under the conditions of this problem. Hints: Why is the first product in the brackets positive? Why is the second term in brackets likely to be small? f. Return to Problem 6.6 and provide more complete explanations for these various findings.

Suppose that an individual consumes three goods, \(x_{1}, x_{2},\) and \(x_{3},\) and that \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) are similar commodities (i.e., cheap and expensive restaurant meals) with \(p_{2}=k p_{3},\) where \(k < 1-\) that is, the goods' prices have a constant relationship to one another. a. Show that \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) can be treated as a composite commodity. b. Suppose both \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3}\) are subject to a transaction cost of \(t\) per unit (for some examples, see Problem 6.6 ). How will this transaction cost affect the price of \(x_{2}\) relative to that of \(x_{3}\) ? How will this effect vary with the value of \(t\) ? c. Can you predict how an income-compensated increase in \(t\) will affect expenditures on the composite commodity \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3} ?\) Does the composite commodity theorem strictly apply to this case? d. How will an income-compensated increase in \(t\) affect how total spending on the composite commodity is allocated between \(x_{2}\) and \(x_{3} ?\)

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Economics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free