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

The three aggregation relationships presented in this chapter can be generalized to any number of goods. This problem asks you to do so. We assume that there are \(n\) goods and that the share of income devoted to good \(i\) is denoted by \(s_{i} .\) We also define the following elasticities: \\[ \begin{array}{l} e_{i, I}=\frac{\partial x_{i}}{\partial I} \cdot \frac{I}{x_{i}} \\ e_{i, j}=\frac{\partial x_{i}}{\partial p_{j}} \cdot \frac{p_{j}}{x_{i}} \end{array} \\] Use this notation to show: a. Homogeneity: \(\sum_{j=1}^{n} e_{i, j}+e_{i, l}=0\) b. Engel aggregation: \(\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_{i} e_{i, I}=1\) c. Cournot aggregation: \(\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_{i} e_{i, j}=-s_{j}\)

Short Answer

Expert verified
To summarize, we proved three aggregation relationships for any number of goods using the given notation: a. Homogeneity: We showed that the sum of price elasticities and income elasticities for each good is equal to zero. This is achieved by applying Euler's Theorem and then rewriting in terms of share of income. b. Engel Aggregation: We demonstrated that the sum of income elasticities multiplied by the share of income spent on each good is equal to 1. We did this by differentiating the total expenditure on all goods with respect to income and then using the share of income definition. c. Cournot Aggregation: We established that the sum of cross-price elasticities multiplied by the share of income spent on all goods except for good j is equal to the negative of the share of income spent on good j. We achieved this by differentiating total expenditure with respect to price and then using the share of income definition. These properties are essential for understanding consumer behavior and the interaction between income and prices of goods in the economy.

Step by step solution

01

Write Definition of Homogeneity

Homogeneity states that the sum of price elasticities and income elasticities for each good \(i\) must be equal to zero. In other words, we need to show that: \\[\sum_{j=1}^{n} e_{i, j} + e_{i, I} = 0\\]
02

Rewrite the Equation Using the Elasticity Definitions

Using the elasticity definitions provided in the problem, we rewrite the equation as: \\[\sum_{j=1}^{n} \left(\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial p_j} \cdot \frac{p_j}{x_i} \right) + \frac{\partial x_i}{\partial I} \cdot \frac{I}{x_i} = 0\\]
03

Apply Euler's Theorem

Since the expenditure on good i can be written as the product of its price and quantity, applying Euler's Theorem, we have: \\[\sum_{j=1}^{n} \left(\frac{\partial (p_i x_i)}{\partial p_j}\right) + \frac{\partial (p_i x_i)}{\partial I} = p_i x_i\\]
04

Rewrite in Terms of Share of Income

Now we express the expenditure on good \(i\) as the product of income and share of income devoted to good \(i\): \\[p_i x_i = s_i I \\]
05

Obtain the Homogeneity Property

Taking the derivatives and rearranging the terms, the equation becomes: \\[\sum_{j=1}^{n} \left(\frac{\partial (s_i I)}{\partial p_j}\right) + \frac{\partial (s_i I)}{\partial I} = s_i I\\] Which proves the Homogeneity property. #b. Engel Aggregation#
06

Write Definition of Engel Aggregation

Engel aggregation states that the sum of income elasticities multiplied by the share of income spent on each good must be equal to 1. In other words, we need to show that: \\[\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_i e_{i, I} = 1\\]
07

Rewrite Using Elasticity Definitions

Using the elasticity definition provided for income, we can rewrite the equation as: \\[\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_i \left(\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial I} \cdot \frac{I}{x_i}\right) = 1\\]
08

Show Engel Aggregation Property

Rename the total expenditure on all goods as total income \(I\): \\[I = \sum_{i=1}^n p_i x_i\\] Differentiating both sides with respect to I: \\[\frac{\partial I}{\partial I} = \sum_{i=1}^n \left(p_i \frac{\partial x_i}{\partial I} + x_i \frac{\partial p_i}{\partial I}\right)\\] Since \(\frac{\partial p_i}{\partial I} = 0\), as price \(p\) is independent of income, the equation becomes: \\[1 = \sum_{i=1}^n p_i \frac{\partial x_i}{\partial I}\\] Now dividing both sides by \(I\): \\[\frac{1}{I} = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{p_i}{x_i} \left(\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial I} \cdot \frac{I}{x_i}\right)\\] Finally, from the definition of share of income, \(p_i x_i = s_i I\), so: \\[\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_i e_{i, I} = 1\\] Which proves the Engel aggregation property. #c. Cournot Aggregation#
09

Write Definition of Cournot Aggregation

Cournot aggregation states that the sum of cross-price elasticities multiplied by the share of income spent on all goods other than good \(j\) must be equal to the negative of the share of income spent on good \(j\). In other words, we need to show that: \\[\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_i e_{i, j} = -s_j\\]
10

Rewrite Using Elasticity Definitions

Using the elasticity definition provided for price, we can rewrite the equation as: \\[\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_i \left(\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial p_j} \cdot \frac{p_j}{x_i}\right) = -s_j\\]
11

Apply Cournot Aggregation Property

Total expenditure on all goods (total income) is given by \(I\): \\[I = \sum_{i=1}^n p_i x_i\\] Differentiating \(I\) concerning price \(p_j\): \\[\frac{\partial I}{\partial p_j} = \sum_{i=1}^n \left(x_i \frac{\partial p_i}{\partial p_j} + p_i \frac{\partial x_i}{\partial p_j}\right)\\] For \(i \neq j\), \(\frac{\partial p_i}{\partial p_j} = 0\), and for \(i = j\), \(\frac{\partial p_j}{\partial p_j} = 1\). The equation becomes: \\[p_j x_j + \sum_{i=1}^n p_i \frac{\partial x_i}{\partial p_j} = I\\] Now, dividing both sides by \(p_j\): \\[x_j + \sum_{i=1}^n \left(\frac{p_i}{x_i} \cdot \frac{\partial x_i}{\partial p_j} \cdot \frac{p_j}{x_i}\right) = \frac{I}{p_j}\\] Rearrange the terms and recalling that \(p_j x_j = s_j I\), we have: \\[\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_i e_{i, j} = -s_j\\] Which proves the Cournot aggregation property.

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.

Homogeneity in Economics
Homogeneity in economics is a principle that captures how the total expenditures on a good relate to changes in prices and income. It's particularly important in understanding consumer behavior and demand analysis.

When we say a demand function is homogeneous, we're expressing that proportionate changes in all prices and income lead to proportionate changes in the quantity demanded. This principle hinges on an intuitive insight: if a consumer's income and all prices double, their purchasing power isn't effectively changed, so they might continue to purchase the same quantities as before.

Mathematically, we demonstrate homogeneity in terms of elasticities. The elasticity measures responsiveness—how much the quantity demanded of good i (denoted as xi) changes with respect to changes in income (I) or prices (pj). The formula given in the textbook, j=1n ei,j + ei,I = 0, states that when you add up all the price elasticities, and the income elasticity for a good, it should be zero.

This ties back directly to economic reality—consider a world where prices and incomes rise proportionally; there'd be no net effect on quantity demanded. By confirming this property, economists can validate their models and ensure they accurately depict economic behaviors.
Engel Aggregation
Engel aggregation is a concept where we explore the relationship between a household's income and the proportion of income spent on different goods. Engel curves illustrate how household expenditure on a particular good varies with income.

To understand Engel aggregation, consider the simple idea that a household's entire income is allocated across various goods. As income changes, the proportion of income that a household spends on a particular good may change as well. The Engel Aggregation takes a high-level view, stating that when you sum up these proportions across all goods, weighted by their respective income elasticities, you should get 1. This reflects the axiom that all income is either saved or spent.

Mathematically, Engel aggregation is expressed as i=1n si ei,I = 1. Here, si represents the share of income spent on good i, and ei,I is the income elasticity of demand for good i. When these products are summed across all goods, they must equal unity, encapsulating the idea that the proportion of a budget spent across all goods, adjusted for income changes, adds up to the entire budget.
Cournot Aggregation
Cournot aggregation brings another layer to our understanding of economic behavior, emphasizing the interaction between goods when prices change. It tells us how the overall structure of spending across different goods adapts when the price of one good in particular changes. This concept is integrally linked to cross-price elasticity, which measures how the quantity demanded of one good responds to price changes in another good.

Cournot's principle of aggregation asserts that the sum of the products of each good's expenditure share and its cross-price elasticity with respect to another good's price equals the negative of the expenditure share on that other good. In a formula, it's presented as i=1n si ei,j = -sj. Essentially, this implies that if the price of good j increases, assuming ceteris paribus (all else being held constant), the total budget share allocated to good j will decrease by the amount spent on other goods adjusted for their cross-price elasticity with good j.

Understanding Cournot aggregation is vital for analyzing market competition and for businesses when considering pricing strategies. It deeply informs how a price change for one product can influence the entire spending pattern within an economy.

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

As defined in Chapter \(3,\) a utility function is homothetic if any straight line through the origin cuts all indifference curves at points of equal slope: The \(M R S\) depends on the ratio \(y / x\) a. Prove that, in this case, \(\partial x / \partial I\) is constant. b. Prove that if an individual's tastes can be represented by a homothetic indifference map then price and quantity must move in opposite directions; that is, prove that Giffen's paradox cannot occur.

The general form for the expenditure function of the almost ideal demand system (AIDS) is given by \\[ \begin{aligned} \ln E\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n}, U\right)=& a_{0}+\sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_{i} \ln p_{i}+\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{n} \gamma_{i j} \ln p_{i} \ln p_{j} \\ &+U \beta_{0} \prod_{i=1}^{k} p_{k}^{\beta_{i}} \end{aligned} \\] For analytical ease, assume that the following restrictions apply: \\[ \gamma_{i j}=\gamma_{j i}, \quad \sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_{i}=1, \quad \text { and } \quad \sum_{j=1}^{n} \gamma_{i j}=\sum_{k=1}^{n} \beta_{k}=0 \\] a. Derive the AIDS functional form for a two-goods case. b. Given the previous restrictions, show that this expenditure function is homogeneous of degree 1 in all prices. This, along with the fact that this function resembles closely the actual data, makes it an "ideal" function. c. Using the fact that \(s_{x}=\frac{d \ln E}{d \ln p_{x}}\) (see Problem 5.8 ), calculate the income share of each of the two goods.

Over a 3 -year period, an individual exhibits the following consumption behavior: $$\begin{array}{lcccc} & p_{x} & p_{y} & x & y \\ \hline \text {Year 1} & 3 & 3 & 7 & 4 \\ \text {Year 2} & 4 & 2 & 6 & 6 \\ \text {Year 3} & 5 & 1 & 7 & 3 \\ \hline \end{array}$$ Is this behavior consistent with the principles of revealed preference theory?

David gets \(\$ 3\) per week as an allowance to spend any way he pleases. Because he likes only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, he spends the entire amount on peanut butter (at \(\$ 0.05 \text { per ounce })\) and jelly \((\text { at } \$ 0.10 \text { per ounce }) .\) Bread is provided free of charge by a concerned neighbor. David is a particular eater and makes his sandwiches with exactly 1 ounce of jelly and 2 ounces of peanut butter. He is set in his ways and will never change these proportions. a. How much peanut butter and jelly will David buy with his \(\$ 3\) allowance in a week? b. Suppose the price of jelly were to increase to \(\$ 0.15\) an ounce. How much of each commodity would be bought? c. By how much should David's allowance be increased to compensate for the increase in the price of jelly in part (b)? d. Graph your results in parts (a) to (c). e. In what sense does this problem involve only a single commodity, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? Graph the demand curve for this single commodity. f. Discuss the results of this problem in terms of the income and substitution effects involved in the demand for jelly.

Many of the topics in behavioral economics can be approached using a simple model that pictures economic decision makers as having multiple "selves," each with a different utility function. Here we examine two versions of this model. In each we assume that this person's choices are dictated by one of two possible quasi-linear utility functions: (1) \(U_{1}(x, y)=x+2 \ln y\) \((2) U_{2}(x, y)=x+3 \ln y\) a. Decision utility: In this model we make a distinction between the utility function that the person uses to make decisions-function \((1)-\) and the function that determines the utility he or she actually experiencesfunction \((2) .\) These functions may differ for a variety of reasons such as lack of information about good \(y\) or \((\) in a two period setting an unwillingness to change from past behavior. Whatever the cause, the divergence between the two concepts can lead to welfare losses. To see this, assume that \(p_{x}=p_{y}=1\) and \(I=10\) i. What consumption choices will this person make using his or her decision utility function? ii. What will be the loss of experienced utility if this person makes the choice specified in part i? iii. How much of a subsidy would have to be given to good \(y\) purchases if this person is to be encouraged to consume commodity bundle that actually maximizes experienced utility (remember, this person still maximizes decision utility in his or her decision making? iv. We know from the lump sum principle that an income transfer could achieve the utility level specified in part iii at a cost lower than subsidizing good \(y .\) Show this and then discuss whether this might not be a socially preferred solution to the problem. b. Preference uncertainty: In this version of the multi-self model, the individual recognizes that he or she might experience either of the two utility functions in the future but does not know which will prevail. One possible solution to this problem is to assume either is equally likely, so make consumption choices that maximize \(U(x, y)=x+2.5 \ln y\) i. What commodity bundle will this person choose? ii. Given the choice in part i what utility losses will be experienced once this person discovers his or her "true" preferences? iii. How much would this person pay to gather information about his or her future preferences before making the consumption choices?

See all solutions

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