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

As defined in Chapter \(3,\) an indifference map 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 \(d X / d\)lis constant. b. Prove that if an individual's tastes can be represented by a homothetic indifference map, price and quantity must move in opposite directions; that is, prove that Giffen's paradox cannot occur

Short Answer

Expert verified
#Answer# a) The change in X with respect to the change in the individual's income (dX/dI) is constant for a homothetic indifference map. b) For a homothetic indifference map, price and quantity must move in opposite directions, which means Giffen's paradox cannot occur.

Step by step solution

01

Part a: Prove that in this case \(d X / dI\) is constant.

First, recall that the marginal rate of substitution (MRS) is the rate at which the consumer is willing to substitute good X for good Y, which can be expressed as \(MRS = - \frac{dY}{dX}\). Now, we are given that MRS depends on the ratio Y/X. So, let's put this relationship into function form: \(MRS = - \frac{dY}{dX}= f(Y/X)\) Take the derivative of Y with respect to the individual's income (I), and let's define it as \(dY/dI\): \(\frac{dY}{dI} = g(Y/X)\) Now, we need to find the relationship between X and I. To do this, divide the MRS equation by the \(dY/dI\) equation: \(\frac{f(Y/X)}{g(Y/X)} = - \frac{dX}{dI}\) Since the left-hand side of the equation only depends on the ratio Y/X, its derivative with respect to income must be constant: \(\frac{d(-dX/dI)}{dI} = 0\) This implies that the change in X with respect to the change in the individual's income (\(dX/dI\)) is constant, as required.
02

Part b: Prove that for a homothetic indifference map, price and quantity must move in opposite directions.

To prove this statement, let's consider the budget constraint of the individual: \(P_X X + P_Y Y = I\) Take the total differential of the budget constraint: \(d(P_X X) + d(P_Y Y) = dI\) Rearrange the equation: \(dX = -\frac{d(P_Y Y)}{P_X} + \frac{dI}{P_X}\) Now, we have to analyze this equation to determine the relationship between price and quantity. From part a, we know that the change in X with respect to the change in the individual's income is constant. Thus, we can write: \(-\frac{d(P_Y Y)}{P_X} + \frac{dI}{P_X} = constant\) From this equation, we can observe that if the price \(P_X\) increases, the quantity consumed X must decrease to make the equation hold true. Similarly, if the price \(P_X\) decreases, the quantity consumed X must increase. This proves that price and quantity must move in opposite directions for an individual's preferences represented by a homothetic indifference map. As a result, Giffen's paradox cannot occur, which states that price and quantity can sometimes move in the same direction, contradicting the law of demand.

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!

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

Thirsty Ed drinks only pure spring water, but he can purchase it in two different-sized containers -75 liter and 2 liter. Because the water itself is identical, he regards these two "goods" as perfect substitutes. a. Assuming Ed's utility depends only on the quantity of water consumed and that the con tainers themselves yield no utility, express this utility function in terms of quantities of 75L containers \((X)\) and \(2 \mathrm{L}\) containers (F) b. State Ed's demand function for \(X\) in terms of \(P_{x}, P_{Y}\), and 1 c. Graph the demand curve for \(X\), holding /and \(P_{v}\) constant. How do changes in /and \(P\) shift the demand curve for \(X ?\) e. What would the compensated demand curve for Xlook like in this situation?

Show that if there are only two goods (Xand \(F\) ) to choose from, both cannot be inferior goods. If Xis inferior, how do changes in income affect the demand for \(\mathrm{F}\) ?

David N. 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 \(\$ .05\) per ounce and jelly (at \(\$ .10\) 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 rise to \(\$ .15\) an ounce. How much of each commodity would be bought? c. By how much should David's allowance be increased to compensate for the rise 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 in volved in the demand for jelly.

As in Example \(5.1,\) assume that utility is given by \\[ \text { utility }=U(X, Y)=X^{3} Y^{\prime} \\] a. Use the uncompensated demand functions given in Example 5.1 to compute the indi rect utility function and the expenditure function for this case. b. Use the expenditure function calculated in part (a) together with Shephard's lemma (footnote 5 ) to compute the compensated demand function for good \(X\) c. Use the results from part (b) together with the uncompensated demand function for good Xto show that the Slutsky equation holds for this case.

Suppose the individual's utility function for three goods, \(X_{1}, X_{2},\) and \(X_{1},\) is "separable"; that is, assume that \\[ U\left(X_{1}, X_{2}, X_{3}\right)=U_{1}\left(X_{1}\right)+U_{z}\left(X_{2}\right)+U_{3}\left(X_{3}\right) \\] and $\boldsymbol{U}_{i}^{\prime}>0 \quad \boldsymbol{U}_{i}^{m}<\mathbf{0} \quad\( for \)i=\mathbf{1}, 2,$ or 3 Show that a. None of the goods can be inferior; b. \(\quad \partial X_{i} / \partial P_{i}\) must be \(<0\) In the Chapter 6 extensions we examine this separable utility case in more detail.

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