Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2023 - Lecture 7 - Slutsky Equation (Ch. 8) - FG
2023 - Lecture 7 - Slutsky Equation (Ch. 8) - FG
1
Effects of a price change
->
What happens when a commodity’s price decreases? a things are
going
to happen
• Income effect: the consumer’s budget of m can purchase more than before,
as if the consumer’s income rose, with consequent income effects on
quantities demanded. ↳ ↑
purchesing power -> We can consume more
as price of y :
has decrease
dominates ?
Which effect
2
Introduction
Eugen Slutsky (1880-1948)
3
Effects of a price change
x2 Consumer’s budget is m.
𝑚 Original choice
𝑝2 Now only m’ is needed to buy the
original bundle at the new prices.
𝑚′
𝑝2 It is as if the consumer’s income
increased by m – m’.
pirot
x1
4
X2
·grae pint as
is
xe
Cheaper
X1
5
Real income changes X2
*
*
mi
>-
=
z -
-
⑧- a
-
original
bundle-pirot
as x2
-- -
is Cheaper
= all I cen
X1
!
decreased
· lower income > income
real incomes
has
our
incomed
·
effects
6
Real income changes
x2 x2
Original budget constraint and optimal choice Original budget constraint and optimal choice
the
outside
New budget constraint new New budget constraint
↓ budget
=> “real income” has risen constraint => “real income” has fallen
-
purchesing
C
power
->
both prices have
chenged in
a ¿ Are we richer or poorer Because I need more
money
original real terms ? to
afford the
original bundle .
bundle
new
inside
constrant
budget
↳↑ Real income
Pe decreased
x1 x1
7
-
original bundle
↳ do I have
Howmuch mo e
de
e the
original bundle ?
• Slutsky isolated the change in demand that is only due to the change in
relative prices by asking:
budget constraint ?
8
substitution eff looking
:
at the change in optimal
Pure substitution effect bundle when prices change controlling for real income
x2
At the new prices, consumer has a higher
M =
P1xs
↳ nominal
+
P2Xz
decrease
income
original
no
“real income”.
income
wie the
our
m =
↳ real
pexi +
p2'x :
affordbundle At the new prices, consumer can exactly
M budget
income
d
afford the old bundle.
-same
the ald 2
keeping
bundle
affordeble line Lower p1 makes good 1 relatively cheaper and
x’ 2
↳ causes a substitution from good 2 to good 1.
Whets en choice ?
↳
a
optimal (x1’,x2’) → (x1’’,x2’’) is the pure substitution effect.
tengency real income new
x2’’ Condition
->
to the new
original ↳
bundle an the same
funtion
- -
real income
m =
pix 1 +
pix 2
x1’ x1’’ x1
Substitution effect
9
Pure substitution Effect
+2
·
Pi P1 => drastical
reduce
of P1
-"~ -affordable
a ⑧
-
~
more
M money
: a
original
~
X1
budget
constraint
+2
· Real income hes increased
↳he fethe= -
>
~ -
en ⑧
-T /M ⑧
·
/ ↳
: ~ How the
optimel bundle
a
original X1
changes ?
budget ↳
effect
constraint substitution
And now… the income effect
x2
-
(x1’’,x2’’) → (x1’’’,x2’’’) is the income effect.
x2’
x2’’’
0
back
a shifting real to the
line
E Optimal choice
budget
x2’’
.
↳
tengency
condition
x2’’ Income
effect :
Green- Blue
Total effect
12
X1 Ped
x2 ↑income => ↑ X1
- effect
↳ positive income
x2’ ↑P1 - -
negetive directions -
x2’’’ income
effect
t
-Sub
eff .
x2’’
Total effect
14
Slutsky effects for income-inferior goods
mand eff income
15
Slutsky effects for income-inferior goods
x2
opposite direction 16
Giffen goods
• In rare cases of extreme income-inferiority, the income effect may be
larger in size than the substitution effect, causing quantity demanded to
fall as own-price decreases.
17
Slutsky effects for Giffen goods
x2 M
A decrease in p1 causes quantity
demanded of good 1 to fall.
x2’’’
h Sub off =>
always positive
Income off =
depends .
Total effect
eff .
Income effect so
lerge consuming
less in over all
18
Giffen goods
• In rare cases of extreme income-inferiority, the income effect may be
larger in size than the substitution effect, causing quantity demanded to
fall as own-price decreases.
begen
• Slutsky decomposition of the effect of a price change into a pure
substitution effect and an income effect thus explains why the Law of
Downward-Sloping Demand is violated for extremely income-inferior
goods. (Giffen goods) GP1
up
ward
sloping
demand
X2
19
Slutsky equation
Slutsky equation:
A change in the demand or in the consumption of a good due to a price
change is the sum of a substitution effect and an income effect.
Ax Dxch
of
both
effect
+
sum
-
Total effect = new d
&
E up of
①me O
for
-
Controling
income
down
changing
substitution effect income
-
income effect
more/less
How much goods
Axe =
(x2 *
( pe P2 m') (
for
I consume the
change
. ,
in real inome .
20
Slutsky decomposition
We want to study the effect of a change in the price of good 1.
• Suppose the new price is lower: p1’ < p1.
• m’ is an income level that allows the consumer to exactly afford the old bundle
at the new price p1’.
Given m’ we can compute the two effects as:
substitution effect
income effect
21
Slutsky decomposition
How can we compute m’?
Recall that m’ is the level of income that:
• makes the original bundle (𝑥1 , 𝑥2 ) exactly affordable at the new price p1’,
• is the cost of original bundle (x1,x2) at the new price p1’.
𝑚′ = 𝑝1′ 𝑥1 + 𝑝2 𝑥2
Am =
m' -
m =
APeXe
*
(P1 , P2 ,
m)
/real , mome
that makes old M Pe' x2
*
(P1 P2 m) P2 x
, (P1 m)
=
P2
+
,
,
22
,
budle
affordable at new prices)
Slutsky decomposition
Then we can write:
-
0
consume now
consume before
mith new price
23
if had par act like a
a constant
way .
-
-
S
X1 X1 3
effect
-
↓ Total
=
consume D+ =
3
↳ descompose I
X2
*
(018
-
, 120)
new price -
Demend for this new price
• The income change needed to keep “real income” fixed: new p old p1
original amount
of m d
M consuming
- - -
income
Real
-
!
chenge in income
new price
• Hence, the substitution effect is:
-
P1 meking
ald bundle
afforceble
24
&
m
x 10 +
/0
=
-
P2 =
P1Pz
↳ of
price ye is
given
so introduce
we
just
Demand funtion
Income
effect
realcomet
-
are controling
~meprices
-
~
1
⑧ ⑧
they
:
jii
⑧ -
* -
in
Controling for P,
real income
=Both bundle
heve the
They
exectly affordable same income
Slutsky decomposition: Example
->
realize total effect
How can we compute the income effect?
positive
-
>
∆𝑥1𝑆 = 𝑥1 0.8, 120 − 𝑥1 0.8, 115.6 = 25 − 24.45 = 0.55 > 0 → normal good!
total -
subeff +
income
off
effect
.
In particular, we deduce that, for this consumer, milk is a normal good (since the income
effect is positive) and that it is also an ordinary good (since the total effect is positive).
25
Perfect complements / perfect substitutes
no sub .
eff no income
effect .
+
A =
26
Perfect Complements
u(x1 x 2) 7axe b x 21 funcion
lineal
=
.
,
solving for x2 :
* a
optimel
* *
a xe b xc - x2
*
in the
= =
5xe
bundle
B2
Be
substitution
effect 0
=
-> only
There
me
no
⑳
~
⑳
⑧
menteining ->
-income
E
↓X Be new
budget
we will be
original ↳
line
on the same budget
shitting
line
point as
the
original
down= meking the
bundles
bundle ->
Substitution effect original just
affordable
↳ now ,
which is the new
Optimel Choice ?
original one
=>
mim
=
Perfect substitutes
u(xe , x2) =
a x1 + bx2 indiff curves
x2
4 X
=
·
⑳
substution
income
effect ↓ effect ·
Original Bundle
->
X1 becomes
Ba
really expensive
.
·
new bundle
Income
ef = 0
Adjustingoldincome
the bundle
=>
meking
just
sub ·
effect :
Total
effect affordeble
↳ new optimel choice
Income
effect ⑧-
substitution effect
⑧-
income
effect for as consuming xx
=
=
0
hevent
we
change to x1 =
0
⑧ X1 0 Income
effect 0
=
=
⑧ x1 =
0 Sub of = Total
ef
Example
A consumer has an income of m = 400, to spend on food (x1) and clothing (x2), that have prices
p1 = 4 and p2 = 2. Her preferences between the two goods are defined by the following utility
function:
The functions that reflect the consumers optimal demand are given by:
The government decides to subsidize food products such that the new price is p1’ = 2.
27
lobb
Donglas Utility funtion
-
UCX1 ,
x 2) =
X2 :
X2
condition
Tangency
= MRS =>
En
-
x2p2 =
P1 x1 >
= x 2
=x
p2X2 P2x1
/- )xx
+
P2X2 m +
= =
m
=
2
p1xs =
m
=
*
x
=
*
*:
x2 => x2
4
pr
=
(4 400)
=No
*
x2 , 2 ,
100)
Pa =
2 (x10 ,
x 2") =
(50 100)
,
m =
400 x
*
(4 , 2 , 4003 =
with new
prices
pl (2 ,
=
*
=
2 x1 2 ,
400)
P2 =
2
x2
*
(2 , 2, 400) =
100
t meking the
original bundle
just
with the
m Creal income) affordable new prices
(x20 xa")
.
=
(50 , 100)
mi =
2 ·
50 +
2 -
100
=
300
m
P! x10 pa x2"
= + .
Axe =
x
1
( 2 , 2 , 300) -
50
(Cubstitution
Ax2 =
- -
30 =
25
effect)
*
Ax2 xe (p1p2 m) x
(pe mi)
=
=
p2
-
,
, .
Ax2 =
00 -
-
=
25 (Income
effect (
Example
𝑚 400
• 𝑥1∗ 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , 𝑚 = = = 50
2𝑝1 2×4
𝑚 400
• 𝑥2∗ 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , 𝑚 = = = 100
2𝑝2 2×2
𝑚
• 𝑥1∗ 𝑝1′ , 𝑝2 , 𝑚 = = 100
2𝑝1′
∗
• Total effect: 𝑥1 𝑝1′ , 𝑝2 , 𝑚 − 𝑥1∗ 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , 𝑚 = 50
𝑚𝑆′ 300
• 𝑥1∗ 𝑝1′ , 𝑝2 , 𝑚𝑆′ = = = 75
2𝑝1′ 2×2
29
Hicks decomposition: An alternative decomposition
Substitution and income effects with Hicks decomposition.
30
Hicks decomposition
x2
x2’’’
bundle
income effect
Here: At utility level is maintained constant!
↳
x2’’ ami originale en
Total effect
x2’’
making
the
original
bundle just
affordable
Total effect
𝑚 400
• 𝑥2∗ 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , 𝑚 = = 2×2 = 100
2𝑝2
𝑚
• 𝑥1∗ 𝑝1′ , 𝑝2 , 𝑚 = = 100
2𝑝1′
′
𝑚𝐻 = 5000 × 2𝑝1′ × 2𝑝2 = 200 2 (< 300)
𝑚𝑆′ 200 2
• 𝑥1∗ 𝑝1′ , 𝑝2 , 𝑚𝐻
′
= = ≈ 71
2𝑝1′ 2×2