Solutions Jehle
Solutions Jehle
Solutions Jehle
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267852209
Article
CITATIONS READS
0 10,310
1 author:
Thomas Herzfeld
Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies
80 PUBLICATIONS 550 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Migration drivers and impacts in rural Kosovo and Albania View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Herzfeld on 27 May 2016.
Remark: Some answers might not be the most elegant ones from a mathematical per-
spective. Any comment and suggestion, also in case of obscurities, are highly welcome.
The graphs are not always perfect.
Contents
1 Mathematical Appendix 2
1.1 Chapter A1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Chapter A2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Consumer Theory 15
2.1 Preferences and Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 The Consumer’s Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3 Indirect Utility and Expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4 Properties of Consumer Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.5 Equilibrium and Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3 Producer Theory 27
3.1 Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Duality in production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4 The competitive firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1
1 Mathematical Appendix
1 Mathematical Appendix
1.1 Chapter A1
A1.7 Graph each of the following sets. If the set is convex, give a proof. If it is not
convex, give a counterexample.
Answer
1 1 1 e+1
(0, 1) + (1, e) = ( , / (x, y)|y = ex .
)∈
2 2 2 2
1 x1 1 x1 x2
(e + ex2 ) ≥ e 2 (x1 +x2 = e 2 · e 2
2
x1 x2
⇔ ex1 + ex2 ≥ 2e 2 · e 2
x1 x2
⇔ ex1 − 2e 2 · e 2 + ex2 ≥ 0 ⇔ (ex1 − ex2 )2 ≥ 0.
2
1 Mathematical Appendix
y2 y1 y2 y1
x1 y 2 + x2 y 1 = x1 y 1 + x2 y2 − 2 ≥ + −2≥0
y1 y2 y1 y2
y − 1 − 2y1 y2 + y2 ≥ 0
(y1 − y2 )2 ≥ 0,
which is always true and therefore, (tx1 + (1 − t)x2 , ty1 + (1 − t)y2 ) ∈ S which is
convex.
150 150 0
−20
50 50
−30
0 0
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
x x x
(a) (x, y)|y = ex (b) (x, y)|y ≥ ex (c) (x, y)|y ≥ 2x − x2 ; x > 0, y > 0
4 1.5
1
3
0.5
y
2 0
−0.5
1
−1
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 1 2 3 4 5
x x
3
1 Mathematical Appendix
A1.40 Sketch a few level sets for the following functions: y = x1 x2 , y = x1 + x2 and
y = min[x1 , x2 ].
Answer
x2 x2 x2
6 6 6
@
@@
@ @@
@ @@
-
x1 @ -
x1 -
x1
(a) y = x1 x2 (b) y = x1 + x2 (c) y = min(x1 , x2 )
∂y ∂ 2y
= −2x = −2
∂x ∂x2
The first derivative is strictly positive for values x < 0 and negative for values x > 0.
The second order partial derivative is always less than zero. Therefore, the function is
concave.
Proof of convexity: The area below a concave function forms a convex set (Theorem
A1.13). Alternatively, from the definition of convexity the following inequality should
hold 4 − (tx1 + (1 − t)x2 )2 ≥ t(4 − (x1 )2 ) + (1 − t)(4 − (x2 )2 ). Multiply out to get
4 − (tx1 + x2 − tx2 )2 ≥ 4 − x22 + t[(x1 )2 − (x2 )2 ]. Again, the area below the function forms
a convex set.
y
6
-x
(a) Show that every linear function is both concave and convex, though neither is strictly
concave nor strictly convex.
Answer The statement is true iff, for any x1 , x2 ∈ Rn , t ∈ [0, 1], it is true that
4
1 Mathematical Appendix
f (tx1 +(1−t)x2 ) = a[tx1 +(1−t)x2 ]+b = tax1 +(1−t)ax2 +tb+(1−t)b = tf (x1 )+(1−t)f (x2 )
(b) Show that every linear function is both quasiconcave and quasiconvex and, for n > 1,
neither strictly so. (There is a slight inaccuracy in the book.)
Answer As it is shown in (a) that a linear function is concave and convex, it must also
be quasiconcave and quasiconvex (Theorem A1.19). More formally, the statement
is true iff, for any x1 , x2 ∈ Rn (x1 6= x2 ) and t ∈ [0, 1], we have
A1.47 Let f (x) be a concave (convex) real-valued function. Let g(t) be an increas-
ing concave (convex) function of a single variable. Show that the composite function,
h(x) = g(f (x)) is a concave (convex) function.
Answer The composition with an affine function preserves concavity (convexity). As-
sume that both functions are twice differentiable. Then the second order partial deriva-
tive of the composite function, applying chain rule and product rule, is defined as
A1.48 Let f (x1 , x2 ) = −(x1 − 5)2 − (x2 − 5)2 . Prove that f is quasiconcave.
Answer Proof: f is concave iff H(x) is negative semidefinite and it is strictly concave if
the Hessian is negative definite.
−2 0
H=
0 −2
zT H(x)z = −2z12 − 2z22 < 0, for z = (z1 , z2 ) 6= 0
Alternatively, we can check the leading principal minors of H: H1 (x) = −2 < 0 and
H2 (x) = 4 > 0. The determinants of the Hessian alternate in sign beginning with a
negative value. Therefore, the function is even strictly concave. Since f is concave, it is
also quasiconcave.
5
1 Mathematical Appendix
A1.49 Answer each of the following questions “yes” or ”no“, and justify your answer.
(c) Suppose f (x) is a function of one variable and there is a real number b such that
f (x) is decreasing on the interval (− inf, b] and increasing on [b, + inf). Is f (x)
quasiconcave?
Answer No, if f is decreasing on (− inf, b] and increasing on [b, + inf) then f (x) is
not quasiconcave.
c−b
Proof: Let a < b < c, and let tb = c−a ∈ [0, 1], tb a + (1 − tb )c = b. Given the nature
of f , f (b) < min[f (a), f (c)]. Then f (tb a + (1 − tb )c) < min[f (a), f (c)], so f is not
quasiconcave.
(d) Suppose f (x) is a function of one variable and there is a real number b such that
f (x) is increasing on the interval (− inf, b] and decreasing on [b, + inf). Is f (x)
quasiconcave?
Answer Yes.
Proof: Let a < b < c, for x ∈ [a, b], f (x) ≥ f (a) and for x ∈ [b, c], f (x) ≥ f (c).
Hence, for any x ∈ [a, c], f (x) ≥ min[f (a), f (c)].
(e) You should now be able to come up with a characterization of quasiconcave func-
tions of one variable involving the words “increasing” and “decreasing”.
Answer Any function of one variable f (x) is quasiconcave if and only if is either con-
tinuously increasing, continuously decreasing or first increasing and later decreasing.
1.2 Chapter A2
A2.1 Differentiate the following functions. State whether the function is increasing,
decreasing, or constant at the point x = 2. Classify each as locally concave, convex, or
linear at the point x = 2.
6
1 Mathematical Appendix
1 3
(c) f (x) = x2 − f1 = 2x +
x3 x4
increasing locally concave
x3 − 3x2 + 1
(e) f (x) = [3x/(x3 + 1)]2 f1 = 18x
(x3 + 1)3
increasing locally concave
3
2 4 4 8 1 1
(f) f (x) = [(1/x + 2) − (1/x − 2)] f1 = − − +4
x2 x3 x2 x
increasing locally convex
Z 1
2 2
(g) f (x) = et dt f1 = −ex
x
decreasing locally convex
7
1 Mathematical Appendix
2x1 −x3
g1 = 2 g2 =
x1 − x2 x3 − x23 x21 − x2 x3 − x23
−x2 − 2x3
g3 = 2
x1 − x2 x3 − x23
A2.5 Find the Hessian matrix and construct the quadratic form, zT H(x)z, when
−2 0
H=
0 −2
zT H(x)z = −2z12 + 2 · 0z1 z2 − 2z22
2 0
H=
0 4
zT H(x)z = 2z12 + 2 · 0z1 z2 + 4z22
6x1 0
H=
0 −2
zT H(x)z = 6x1 z12 − 2z22
8
1 Mathematical Appendix
−2 1
H=
1 −2
zT H(x)z = −2z12 + 2z1 z2 − 2z22
A2.6 Prove that the second–order own partial derivatives of a convex function must
always be nonnegative. Answer A convex function must be increasing over their whole
domain, i.e. might not have a maximum. Therefore, the second–order own partial
derivative can not change from nonnegative to negative. The second-oorder own partial
derivatives represent the diagonal elements of the Hessian. Convexity of the function
requires the Hessian to be positive semidefinite.
A2.7 Complete Example A2.4 for the partial with respect to x2 . Answer The partial
with respect to x2 is
∂f (x1 , x2 ) x1 α
= βAxα1 xβ−1
2 = (1 − α)A
∂x2 x2
After multiplication by the factor t, we obtain:
(b) According to Euler’s theorem, we should have f (x1 , x2 ) = (∂f /∂x1 ) x1 +(∂f /∂x2 ) x2 .
Verify this.
x1 x2 x21 + x22
q
1 · f (x1 , x2 ) = p 2 x 1+ p x 2 = p = x21 + x22
x1 + x22 x21 + x22 x21 + x22
9
1 Mathematical Appendix
(e) Prove that whenever f (x1 , x2 ) is homogeneous of degree m and g(x1 , x2 ) is homoge-
neous of degree n, then k(x1 , x2 ) = g (f (x1 , x2 ), f (x1 , x2 )) is homogeneous of degree
mn.
k(tx1 , tx2 ) = [tm (f (x1 , x2 ), f (x1 , x2 ))]n k = mn
A2.15 Check the calculations in Example A2.6 by using the substitution method to
solve the system of first–order partials. Then evaluate the function at x∗1 = 3/7 and
x∗2 = 8/7 and find y ∗ . Verify what we found in Example A2.7 by evaluating the function
at any other point and comparing to y ∗ . Answer The system of first–order partials is
∂f (x1 , x2 )
= −8x1 + 3x2
∂x1
∂f (x1 , x2 )
= 1 + 3x1 − 2x2
∂x2
Re–arrange the first partial gives: x1 = 3/8x2 . Substitute into the second and solve for
x2 gives: x∗2 = 8/7 and x∗1 = 3/7. This is the same result as found by using the matrix
method. The value of the function at the critical point is y ∗ (3/7, 8/7) = 4/7.
10
1 Mathematical Appendix
A2.18 Let f (x) be a real-valued function defined on Rn+ , and consider the matrix
0 f1 · · · fn
f1 f11 · · · f1n
H∗ = .. .. .
.. . .
. . . .
fn fn1 · · · fnn
This is a different sort of bordered Hessian than we considered in the text. Here, the
matrix of second-order partials is bordered by the first–order partials and a zero to
complete the square matrix. The principal minors of this matrix are the determinants
0 f1 f2
0 f1
, D3 = f1 f11 f12 , . . . , Dn = |H∗ |.
D2 =
f1 f11
f2 f21 f22
Arrow & Enthoven (1961) use the sign pattern of these principal minors to establish the
following useful results:
(i) If f (x) is quasiconcave, these principal minors alternate in sign as follows: D2 ≤ 0,
D3 ≥ 0, . . . .
(ii) If for all x ≥ 0, these principal minors (which depend on x) alternate in sign
beginning with strictly negative: D2 < 0, D3 > 0, . . . , then f (x) is quasiconcave
on the nonnegative orthant. Further, it can be shown that if, for all x 0, we
have this same alternating sign pattern on those principal minors, then f (x) is
strictly quasiconcave on the (strictly) positive orthant.
(a) The function f (x1 , x2 ) = x1 x2 + x1 is quasiconcave on R2+ . Verify that its principal
minors alternate in sign as in (ii).
Answer The bordered Hessian is
0 x2 + 1 x1
H ∗ = x2 + 1 0 1 .
x1 1 0
The two principal minors are D2 = −(x2 +1)2 < 0 and D3 = 2x1 x2 +2x1 ≥ 0. Which
shows that the function will be quasiconcave and will be strictly quasiconcave for
all x1 , x2 > 0.
11
1 Mathematical Appendix
(b) Let f (x1 , x2 ) = a ln(x1 + x2 ) + b, where a > 0. Is this function strictly quasiconcave
for x 0? It is quasiconcave? How about for x ≥ 0? Justify.
Answer The bordered Hessian is
a a
0 x1 +x2 x1 +x2
a −a −a
H∗ = x1 +x2 (x1 +x2 )2 (x1 +x2 )2 .
a −a −a
x1 +x2 (x1 +x2 )2 (x1 +x2 )2
a
The two principal minors are D2 = −( x1 +x 2
)2 < 0 for x1 , x2 > 0 and D3 = 0.
Which shows that the function can not be strictly quasiconcave. However, it can be
quasiconcave following (i). For x1 = x2 = 0 the function is not defined. Therefore,
curvature can not be checked in this point.
The principal minors of the Hessian are not consistent with a concave curvature: D1 =
2x22 > 0 and D2 = −12x21 x22 < 0. The bordered Hessian is
0 2x1 x22 2x21 x2
H∗ = 2x1 x22 2x22 4x1 x2 .
2x21 x2 4x1 x2 2x21
The two principal minors of the bordered Hessian are D2 = −(2x1 x2 )2 < 0 and D3 =
16x41 x42 > 0. Which shows that the function will be strictly quasiconcave. Note that this
function is not homogeneous of degree one.
A2.25 Solve the following problems. State the optimised value of the function at the
solution.
2 2
(b) minx1 ,x
p2 = x1 x2 s.t. x1 +
px2 = 1 p p
x1 = 1/2 and x2 = − 1/2 or x1 = − 1/2 and x2 = 1/2, optimised value=
−1/2
12
1 Mathematical Appendix
2 2 2 2 2
,x2 = x1 x2 s.t. x
(c) maxx1p 1 /a + x2 /b = 1 p
2ab2
p
x1 = a2 /3 and x2 = 2b2 /3 or x2 = − 2b2 /3, optimised value= 33 /2
(d) maxx1p
,x2 = x1 + x2 s.t.
p x41 + x42 = 1 √
4
x1 = 1/2 and x2 = 1/2, optimised value= 23 = 23/4
4 4
A2.26 Graph f (x) = 6 − x2 − 4x. Find the point where the function achieves its
unconstrained (global) maximum and calculate the value of the function at that point.
Compare this to the value it achieves when maximized subject to the nonnegativity
constraint x ≥ 0.
Answer This function has a global optimum at x = −2. It is a maximum as the second-
order partial derivative is less than zero. The value of the function at that point is
f (−2) = 10. Obviously, the global maximum is not a solution in the presence of a
nonnegativity constraint. The constrained maximization problem is
L(x, z, λ) = 6 − x2 − 4x + λ(x − z)
Since we do not know a priori whether or not the constraint will be binding, the par-
tial derivative of L with respect to the slack variable is not equal to zero. Either the
constraint is binding, i.e. the slack variable redundant z = 0, or the constraint is not
binding, i.e. the shadow value of the constraint λ = 0. Such a condition can be sum-
marised in stating that the product of the two variables must be zero:
zLz = z(−λ) = 0
If λ = 0, then x = −2 would solve the problem. However, it does not satisfy the
nonnegativity constraint. If λ 6= 0, then z = 0 and due to the equality of z and x
derived from (iii) x = 0. As the function is continuously decreasing for all values x ≥ 0,
it is the only maximizer in this range.
13
1 Mathematical Appendix
y
6
x
-
14
2 Consumer Theory
2 Consumer Theory
2.1 Preferences and Utility
1.6 Cite a credible example were the preferences of an ‘ordinary consumer’ would be
unlikely to satisfy the axiom of convexity.
Answer : Indifference curves representing satiated preferences don’t satisfy the axiom of
convexity. That is, reducing consumption would result in a higher utility level. Negative
utility from consumption of ‘bads’ (too much alcohol, drugs, unhealthy food etc.) would
rather result in concave preferences.
1.8 Sketch a map of indifference sets that are parallel, negatively sloped straight lines,
with preference increasing northeasterly. We know that preferences such as these satisfy
Axioms 1, 2, 3, and 4. Prove the they also satisfy Axiom 50 . Prove that they do not
satisfy Axiom 5.
Answer : Definition of convexity (Axiom 50 ): If x1 % x0 , then tx1 + (1 − t)x0 % x0 for
all t ∈ [0, 1]. Strict convexity (Axiom 5) requires that, if x1 6= x0 and x1 % x0 , then
tx1 + (1 − t)x0 x0 for all t ∈ [0, 1].
The map of indifference sets in Figure 5 represents perfect substitues. We know that
those preferences are convex but not stricly convex. Intuitively, all combinations of two
randomly chosen bundles from one indifference curve will necessarily lie on the same
indifference curve. Additionally, the marginal rate of substitution does not change by
moving from x0 to x1 . To prove the statement more formally, define xt as convex
combination of bundles x0 to x1 : xt = tx0 + (1 − t)x1 . Re-writing in terms of single
commodities gives us:
A little rearrangement and equalising the two definitions results in the equality
That is, the consumer is indifferent with respect to the convex combination and the
original bundles, a clear violation of strict convexity.
15
2 Consumer Theory
x2
6
x1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.9 Sketch a map of indifference sets that are parallel right angles that “kink” on the
line x1 = x2 . If preference increases northeasterly, these preferences will satisfy Axioms
1, 2, 3, and 4’. Prove that they also satisfy Axiom 5’. Do they also satisfy Axiom 4?
Do they satisfy Axiom 5?
Answer : Convexity (Axiom 50 ) requires that, if x1 % x0 , then tx1 + (1 − t)x0 % x0 for
all t ∈ [0, 1].
Take any two vectors x0 , x1 such that x0 ∼ x1 . Given the nature of these preferences,
it must be true that min[x01 , x02 ] = min[x11 , x12 ]. For any t ∈ [0, 1] consider the point
tx1 + (1 − t)x2 . If we can show that
min[tx01 + (1 − t)x02 , tx11 + (1 − t)x12 ] ≥ min[tx01 , tx11 ] + min[(1 − t)x02 , +(1 − t)x12 ]
= min[x02 , x12 ] + t[min(x01 , x11 ) − min(x02 , x12 )] = min[x02 , x12 ]
16
2 Consumer Theory
xt tx0 + (1 − t)x1 . That is, the consumer is indifferent with respect to the convex
combination and the original bundles, a clear violation of strict convexity.
x2
6
0
px1
px
- x1
17
2 Consumer Theory
αx2 p2
By dividing first and second FOC and some rearrangement, we get either x1 = (1−α)p1
or
(1−α)p1 x1
x2 = αp2
. Substituting one of these expressions into the budget constraint, results
αy (1−α)y
in the Marshallian demand functions: x1 = p1
and x2 = p2
.
1.21 We’ve noted that u(x) is invariant to positive monotonic transforms. One com-
mon transformation is the logarithmic transform, ln(u(x)). Take the logarithmic trans-
form of the utility function in 1.20; then, using that as the utility function, derive the
Marshallian demand functions and verify that they are identical to those derived in the
preceding exercise (1.20).
Answer : Either the Lagrangian is used or the equality of Marginal Rate of Substitution
with the price ratio. The Lagrangian is
L = ln(A) + α ln(x1 ) + (1 − α) ln(x2 ) + λ(y − p1 x1 − p2 x2 ). The FOC are
∂L α
= − λp1 = 0
∂x1 x1
∂L (1 − α)
= − λp2 = 0
∂x2 x2
∂L
= y − p 1 x1 + p 2 x2 = 0
∂λ
1.22 We can generalise further the result of the preceding exercise. Suppose that
preferences are represented by the utility function u(x). Assuming an interior solution,
the consumer’s demand functions, x(p, y), are determined implicitly by the conditions
in (1.10). Now consider the utility function f (u(x)), where f 0 > 0, and show that the
first–order conditions characterising the solution to the consumer’s problem in both cases
can be reduced to the same set of equations. Conclude from this that the consumer’s
demand behavior is invariant to positive monotonic transforms of the utility function.
Answer : The set of first–order conditions for a utility function and its positive monotone
transform, assuming a linear budget constraint, are as follows:
∂L ∂u ∂L ∂f (u) ∂u(x)
= − λpi = − λpi
∂xi ∂xi ∂xi ∂u ∂xi
∂L ∂u ∂L ∂f (u) ∂u(x)
= − λpj = − λpj
∂xj ∂xj ∂xj ∂u ∂xj
∂u/∂xi pi ∂f (u)/∂u ∂u/∂xi pi
= =
∂u/∂xj pj ∂f (u)/∂u ∂u/∂xj pj
After forming the Marginal Rate of Substitution, the outer derivative cancels out. There-
fore, the demand function should be unaffected by the positive monotonic transformation
of the utility function.
18
2 Consumer Theory
(b) f (x) = u(x) − (u(x))2 No, function f is decreasing with increasing consumption for
any u(x) < (u(x))2 . Therefore, it can not represent the preferences of the consumer.
It could do so if the minus sign is replaced by a plus sign.
(c) f (x) = u(x) + ni=1 xi Yes, the transformation is a linear one, as the first partial
P
is a positive constant, here one, and the second partial of the transforming function
∂f ∂u
is zero. Checking the partial derivatives proves this statement: ∂x i
= ∂xi
+ 1 and
∂2f ∂2u
∂x2i
= ∂x2i
.
1.28 An infinitely lived agent owns 1 unit of a commodity that she consumes over her
lifetime. The commodity is perfect storable and she will receive no more than she has
now. Consumption of the commodity in period t is denoted xt , and her lifetime utility
function is given by
∞
X
u(x0 , x1 , x2 , . . .) = β t ln(xt ), where 0 < β < 1.
t=0
19
2 Consumer Theory
1.30 Show that the indirect utility function in Example 1.2 is a quasi-convex function
of prices and income.
20
2 Consumer Theory
Answer : The indirect utility function corresponding to CES preferences is: v(p, y) =
y (pr1 + pr2 )−1/r , where r ≡ ρ/(ρ − 1).
There are several ways. First, using the inequality relationship, let pt = tp0 + (1 − t)p1
and y t = ty 0 + (1 − t)y 1 . We need to show that the indirect utility function fulfills the
inequality
tr −1/r 0r −1/r 1r −1/r
y ptr 0r 1r
1 + p 2 ≤ max[y p 1 + p 2 , y p 1 + p 2 ]
which gives:
1r −1/r 0r −1/r 1r −1/r
y tr (p0r 0r r 1r
≤ max[y p0r , y p1r
1 + p2 ) + (1 − t) (p1 + p2 ) 1 + p2 1 + p2 ].
1.37 Verify that the expenditure function obtained from the CES direct utility function
in Example 1.3 satisfies all the properties given in Theorem 1.7.
Answer : The expenditure function in a two–commodity world is e(p, u) = u (pr1 + pr2 )1/r
where r ≡ ρ/(ρ − 1).
4. Increasing in p.
1
Again, take all first partial derivatives with respect to prices: ∂e/∂pi = upr−1
i (pr1 + pr2 ) r −1 ,
what is, obviously, positive.
5. Homogeneous of degree 1 in p.
e(tp, u) = u ((tp1 )r + (tp2 )r )1/r = t1 u (pr1 + pr2 )1/r
21
2 Consumer Theory
6. Concave in p.
The definition of concavity in prices requires
h i h i
r r 1/r r r 1/r
t u p 0 1 + p0 2 + (1 − t) u p1 1 + p1 2 ≤ e(pt , u)
for pt = tp0 + (1 − t)p1 . Plugging in the definition of the price vector into e(pt , u)
yields the relationship
h i h i
r r 1/r r r 1/r
t u p0 1 + p0 2 + (1 − t) u p1 1 + p1 2 ≤
r r r r 1/r
u t(p0 1 + p0 2 ) + (1 − t)(p1 1 + p1 2 ) .
7. Shephard’s lemma
∂e/∂p1 = upr−1 r r 1/r−1
1 (p1 + p2 ) what is exactly the definition of a CES-type Hicksian
demand function.
1.42 For expositional purposes, we derived Theorems 1.14 and 1.15 separately, but
really the second one implies the first. Show that when the substitution matrix σ(p, u)
is negative semidefinite, all own–substitution terms will be nonpositive.
22
2 Consumer Theory
Answer : Theorem 1.15 implies Theorem 1.14 because all elements of the substitution
matrix represent second–order partial derivatives of the expenditure function. Therefore,
the second–order cross-partial derivatives must be equal due to Young’s theorem which
results in a symmetric matrix of second–order partial derivatives. The diagonal elements
of this matrix must be negative because the expenditure function is required to be
concave in prices. Subsequently, any compensated demand function is required to be
non–increasing in its own price. Thus, the leading principal minors will be alternating
in sign, starting with negative:
1.43 In a two-good case, show that if one good is inferior, the other good must be
normal.
Answer : The Engel-aggregation in a two-good case is the product of the income elasticity
and the repsective expenditure share s1 η1 + s2 η2 = 1. An inferior good is characterised
by a negative income elasticity, thus, one of the two summands will be less than zero.
Therefore, to secure this aggregation, the other summand must be positive (even larger
one) and the other commodity must be a normal good (even a luxury item).
1.55 What restrictions must the αi , f (y), w(p1 , p2 ), and z(p1 , p2 ) satisfy if each of the
following is to be a legitimate indirect utility function?
Answer :
(b) v(p1 , p2 , y) = w(p1 , p2 )+z(p1 , p2 )/y Both functions, w and z, must be continuous and
decreasing in prices. Function z has to be homogeneous of degree one and function
w has to be homogeneous of degree zero:
v(tp1 , tp2 , ty) = t0 w(p1 , p2 ) + (t1 z(p1 , p2 ))/(ty) = t0 (w(p1 , p2 ) + z(p1 , p2 )/y) .
1.60 Show that the Slutsky relation can be expressed in elasticity form as ij = hij −
sj ηi , where hij is the elasticity of the Hicksian demand for xi with respect to price pj ,
23
2 Consumer Theory
By assuming that xhi = xi before the price change occurs, we can divide all three terms
by xi . The result of this operation is
24
2 Consumer Theory
(c) Use the Slutsky equation to decompose the effect of an own-price change on the
demand for x into an income and substitution effect. Interpret your result briefly.
Answer A well-known property of any demand function derived from a quasi-linear
utility function is the absence of the income effect. Which can be easily seen in the
application of the Slutsky equation:
∂x ∂xh ∂x ∂x 1 1 ∂xh
= +x =− + 0 · =
∂p ∂p ∂y ∂p p2 p ∂p
Therefore, the effect of an own-price change on the demand for x consists of the
substitution effect only, the partial derivative of the compensated demand function
with respect to price.
(d) Suppose that the price of x rises from p0 to p1 > p0 . Show that the consumer surplus
area between p0 and p1 gives an exact measure of the effect of the price change on
25
2 Consumer Theory
consumer welfare.
Answer The consumer surplus area can be calculated by integrating over the inverse
uncompensated demand function of x:
Z p0
1
CS = dx = ln p0 − ln p1 .
p1 x
∆v = v 1 (p1 , y 0 ) − v 0 (p0 , y 0 ) = y − 1 − ln p1 − (y − 1 − ln p0 ) = − ln p1 + ln p0 .
As the two expressions are equal, the consumer surplus area gives an exact measure
of the effect of the price change on consumer welfare in the case of quasi-linear
preferences.
(e) Carefully illustrate your findings with a set of two diagrams: one giving the indif-
ference curves and budget constraints on top, and the other giving the Marshallian
and Hicksian demands below. Be certain that your diagrams reflect all qualitative
information on preferences and demands that you’ve uncovered. Be sure to consider
the two prices p0 and p1 , and identify the Hicksian and Marshallian demands.
Answer See Figure 8. Please note, that Hicksian and Marshallian demands are
identical here.
26
3 Producer Theory
3 Producer Theory
3.1 Production
3.1 The elasticity of average product is defined as ∂AP i (x)
∂xi
· APxii(x) . Show that this is
equal to µi (x) − 1. Show that average product is increasing, constant, or decreasing as
marginal product exceeds, is equal to, or less than average product.
Answer : In order to know the first part of the elasticity, which is at the same time the
slope of the average product, we need to take the first partial derivative of AP = f (x)/y.
Applying quotient rule to get the first partial derivative of the average product gives:
Multiply this term with the right part of the definition (xi /AP ) gives M P/AP − 1 what
is exactly ∂f∂x(x)
i
xi
y
= µi (x) − 1.
The first part of the above definition equals the slope of the average product: (M P −
AP )/xi . It is straightforward to show that whenever marginal product exceeds the
average product the slope has to be positive. The average product reaches a maximum
when the marginal product equals average product. Finally, whenever M P < AP
average product is sloping downwards. That shows, the marginal product function
intersects the average product function always in the maximum.
3.7 Goldman & Uzawa (1964) have shown that the production function is weakly
separable with respect to the partition {N1 , . . . , NS } if and only if it can be written in
the form
f (x) = g f 1 (x(1) ), . . . , f S (x(S) ) ,
where g is some function of S variables, and, for each i, f i (x(i) ) is a function of the
subvector x(i) of inputs from group i alone. They have also shown that the production
function will be strongly separable if and only if it is of the form
where G is a strictly increasing function of one variable, and the same conditions on the
subfunctions and subvectors apply. Verify their results by showing that each is separable
as they claim.
27
3 Producer Theory
Answer To show that the first equation is weakly separable with respect to the partitions,
∂[f (x)/f (x)]
we need to show that i ∂xk j = 0 ∀i, j ∈ NS and k ∈
/ NS . Calculate the marginal
products of the first equation for two arbitrary inputs i and j:
∂g ∂f S ∂g ∂f S
fi (x) = fj (x) = .
∂f S ∂xi ∂f S ∂xj
This expression is independent of any other input which is not in the same partition N S
and, therefore, the production function is weakly separable.
∂(fi /fj )
/ NS
= 0 for k ∈
∂xk
To show that the second equation is strongly separable we have to perform the same ex-
ercise, however, assuming that the three inputs are elements of three different partitions
i ∈ NS , j ∈ NT and k ∈ / NS ∪ NT . The marginal products of the two inputs i and j are:
S
0 ∂f x(S) 0 ∂f
T
x(T )
fi (x) = G fj (x) = G .
∂xi ∂xj
3.8 A Leontief production function has the form y = min {αx1 , βx2 } for α > 0 and
β > 0. Carefully sketch the isoquant map for this technology and verify that the
elasticity of substitution σ = 0, where defined.
Answer : Taking the total differential of the log of the factor ratio gives d ln (x2 /x1 ) =
1/x2 dx2 − 1/x1 dx1 . However, the MRTS is not defined in the kinks as the function is
discontinuous. Along all other segments of the isoquants the MRTS is zero. Therefore,
the elasticity of substitution is only defined when the input ratio remains constant. In
this case, σ = 0.
3.9 Calculate σ for the Cobb-Douglas production function y = Axα1 xβ2 , where A >
0, α > 0 and β > 0.
Answer : The total differential of the log of the factor ratio gives
28
3 Producer Theory
x2
6
-
x1
Figure 9: Isoquant map of Leontief technology
d ln(x2 /x1 ) = 1/x2 dx2 −1/x1 dx1 . The marginal rate of technical substitution is M RT S =
αx2
βx1
. Write in logs and take the total differential results in
ln M RT S = ln α + ln x2 − ln β + ln x1
d ln M RT S = (1/x1 dx1 − 1/x2 dx2 )
1/ρ
3.14 Let y = ( ni=1 αi xρi ) , where i αi = 1 and 0 6= ρ < 1. Verify that σij =
P P
1/(1 − ρ) for all i 6= j.
Answer Apply the definition of the elasticity of substitution.
d (ln(xj ) − ln(xi ))
σij =
d ln (fi (x)/fj (x))
1
xj
dxj − x1i dxi
=
αi xiρ−1 ( i αi xρi )1/ρ−1
P
d ln α xρ−1 (P α xρ )1/ρ−1
j j i i i
1 1
− xi dxi − xj dxj
=
1 1
ρ − 1 xi dxi − xj dxj
−1 1
= =
ρ−1 1−ρ
29
3 Producer Theory
Another way to calculate the elasticity of subsitution starts with the definition of the
MRTS:
ρ−1
x1
M RT S =
x2
x2
= M RT S 1/(1−ρ)
x1
x2 1
ln = ln M RT S
x1 1−ρ
ln(x2 /x1 ) 1
σ= =
ln M RT S 1−ρ
Note that assuming perfect competition, the elasticity of substitution can be expressed
in terms of the input price ratio in place of the M RT S:
d ln(xj /xi ) wi /wj d(xj /xi )
σ= = .
d ln(wi /wj ) xj /xi d(wi /wj )
Alternatively, the elasticity of substitution can also be expressed in terms of the elasticity
of input demand and the inverse of the cost share (assuming perfect competition):
∂xi wj wj xj
σ= .
∂wj xi c
3.15 For the generalised CES production function, prove the following claims made in
the text.
n
!1/ρ n
X X
y= αi xρi , where αi = 1 and 0 6= ρ < 1
i=1 i=1
1. n
Y
lim y = xαi i
ρ→0
i=1
Answer : Write the log of the CES production function ln y = 1/ρ ln αi xρi . At
P
ρ = 0, the value of the function is indeterminate. However, using L’Hòpital’s rule
we can write
αi xρi ln xi
P
lim ln y = .
αi xρi
P
ρ→0
P P
At ρ = 0 this expression turns into ln y = αi ln xi / αi . Because the denomi-
nator isQdefined to be one, we can write the CES production function at this point
as y = xαi i , what is exactly the generalised Cobb-Douglas form.
2.
lim y = min {x1 , . . . , xn }
ρ→−∞
30
3 Producer Theory
Answer : Let us assume that αi = αj . Then the CES production function has the
form y = ( i xρi )1/ρ . Let us suppose that x1 = min( xi ) and ρ < 0. We want
P P
3.2 Cost
3.19 What restrictions must there be on the parameters of the Cobb-Douglas form in
Example 3.4 in order that it be a legitimate cost function: c(w, y) = Aw1α w2β y?
Answer : The parameters A, w1 , w2 and y are required to be larger than zero. A cost
function is required to be increasing in input prices. Therefore, the exponents α and β
must be larger zero. To fulfill the property of homogeneity of degree one in input prices,
the exponents have to add up to one: α + β = 1. To secure concavity in input prices,
the Hesse matrix of all second–order partial derivatives must be negative semidefinite.
As a necessary condition, the second–order own–partial derivatives cannot be positive.
Thus, each of the exponents can not be larger than one (α ≤ 1, β ≤ 1).
3.24 Calculate the cost function and conditional input demands for the Leontief pro-
duction function in Exercise 3.8.
Answer This problem is identical to the expenditure function and compensated demand
functions in the case of perfect complements in consumer theory.
Because the production is a min-function, set the inside terms equal to find the optimal
relationship between x1 and x2 . In other words, αx1 = βx2 . For a given level of output
y, we must have y = αx1 = βx2 . Rearrange this expression to derive the conditional
input demands:
y y
x1 (w, y) = x2 (w, y) = .
α β
The cost function is obtained by substituting the two conditional demands into the
definition of cost:
w1 y w2 y
c(w, y) = w1 x1 (w, y) + w2 x2 (w, y) = + .
α β
3.27 In Fig. 3.85, the cost functions of firms A and B are graphed against the input
price w1 for fixed values of w2 and y.
(a) At wage rate w10 , which firm uses more of input 1? At w10 ? Explain?
Answer : Input demand can be obtained by using Shephard’s lemma, represented by the
slope of the cost function. Therefore, at w10 firm B demands more of factor 1 and at
wage rate w10 firm A has a higher demand of that input.
(b) Which firm’s production function has the higher elasticity of substitution? Explain.
Answer : The first-order conditions for cost minimisation imply that the marginal rate
of technical substitution between input i and j equals the ratio of factor prices wi /wj . In
31
3 Producer Theory
the two input case, we can re-write the original definition of the elasticity of substitution
as
d ln(x2 /x1 ) d ln(x2 /x1 ) x̂2 − x̂1
σ= = = ,
d ln(f1 /f2 ) d ln(w1 /w2 ) ŵ1 − ŵ2
where the circumflex denotes percentage change in input levels and input prices, respec-
tively. Because ŵ2 = 0, the denominator reduces to ŵ1 , which is assumed to be the
same for both firms. In (a) we established that input demand at w10 is larger for firm B
compared to firm A. It follows that the numerator will be larger for B and, subsequently,
firm A’s production function shows the higher elasticity of substitution at w10 .
∂xi (w, y) y
iy (w, y) ≡ .
∂y xi (w, y)
(a) Show that iy (w, y) = φ(y)iy (w, 1) when the production function is homothetic.
Given a homothetic production function, the cost function can be written as c(w, y) =
φ(y)c(w, 1). Shephard’s lemma states that the first order partial derivative with re-
spect to the price of input i gives demand of xi and to obtain the elasticity we need to
take take the second-order cross-partial derivative of the cost function with respect
to output. However, by Young’s theorem it is known that the order of differentiation
does not matter. Therefore, the following partial derivatives should be equal:
∂ 2c y ∂φ(y) y 1
iy (w, y) = ∂wi = xi (w, 1) = 0 iy (w, 1).
∂y∂wi ∂c ∂y φ(y)xi (w, 1) φ (y)
(b) Show that iy = 1, for i = 1, . . . , n, when the production function has constant
returns to scale.
Answer For any production function with constant returns to scale, the conditional
input demand xi is linear in output level y (see Theorem 3.4). More formally, the
conditional input demand of a production function homogeneous of degree α > 0
can be written as xi (w, y) = y 1/α xi (w, 1). By definition, a constant returns to scale
technology requires a production function homogeneous of degree 1. Therefore, the
conditional input demand reduces to xi (w, y) = yxi (w, 1). Calculating the output
elasticity of demand for input xi results in:
∂xi (w, y) y y
iy (w, y) ≡ = xi (w, 1) = 1.
∂y xi (w, y) yxi (w, 1)
32
3 Producer Theory
3.33 Calculate the costPfunction and the conditional input demands for the linear
production function y = ni=1 αi xi .
Answer Because the production function is linear, the inputs can be substituted for
another. The most efficient input (i.e. input with the greatest marginal product/ price)
will be used and the other inputs will not be used.
α
(y
αi
if wαii > wjj ∀j 6= i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}
xi (w, y) = α
0 if wαii < wjj for at least one j 6= i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}.
wi y
The cost function is then c(w, y) = αi
, where i is the input where
αi αj
> ∀j 6= i, j ∈ 1, . . . , n.
wi wj
33
3 Producer Theory
The function is not concave as the first partial derivatives with respect to both
input prices are negative and the second-order partial derivatives are positive. The
determinants of the Hessian matrix are |H1 | > 0 and |H2 | = 0. Thus, the function
is convex.
√
(f) c(w, y) = (y + 1/y) w1 w2
The function satisfies all properties, except continuity in y = 0.
34
3 Producer Theory
xα1 x1−α
y= α 2
1−α
= axα1 x1−α
2 where a = (Aαα (1 − α)1−α )−1
α (1 − α)
For the CES cost function a short-cut is used: Derive the conditional input demand
functions and substitute them into the production function.
∂c(w, y) 1
x1 = = yAw1r−1 (w1r + w2r ) r −1
∂w1
∂c(w, y) 1
x2 = = yAw2r−1 (w1r + w2r ) r −1
∂w2
−r −r 1/ρ
ρ w1 + w2
y = (Ay) −r = Ay
w1 + w2−r
Substituting the two functions in the definition of costs, the resulting cost function
is:
y 4/3 y 4/3
2/3 1/3 2/3
c(w1 , w2 , y) = w1 (2w2 ) +1/3
w2 w1 2−2/3
100 100
y 4/3
2/3 1/3
= 21/3 + 2−2/3
w1 w2 .
100
35
3 Producer Theory
(b) Find the effect of an increase in output on marginal cost, and verify that λ =
marginal cost.
Answer : Marginal costs are
2/3 1/3
1
(y/100)1/3 w1 w2 21/3 + 2−2/3 . Marginal costs are increasing
M C = ∂c/∂y = 75
with output which is shown by
∂2c 1 2 2/3 1/3
∂M C
(y/100)−2/3 w1 w2 21/3 + 2−2/3 . From the FOC of the La-
∂y
= ∂y 2 = 150
1/2 3/4
w1 x1 w2 x2
grangian we can derive that λ∗ = 1/4 = 1/2 . Substituting the conditional input
50x2 25x1
demand functions into one of those expressions gives
w1 1/2 −1/4
λ∗ = (y/100)4/3 (2w2 /w1 )1/3 (y/100)4/3 (2w2 /w1 )−2/3
50
21/3 y 1/3 2/3 1/3
= ( ) w1 w2
50 100
When you solve the ratios, this expression will be equal to the marginal cost function.
(c) Given p = price of output, find x1 (w, p), x2 (w, p) and π(w, p). Use Hotelling’s
lemma to derive the supply function y(w, p).
Answer : By maximising π = py − c(w, y) the first-order condition is
∂π 1 y 1/3 2/3 1/3 1/3
=p − w1 w2 (2 + 2−2/3 ) = 0
∂y 75 100
3 !3
75 p
y =100 1/3
2 + 2−2/3 2/3 1/3
w1 w2
The first expression affirms the equality of price and marginal cost as the profit
maximum for any competitive firm. The last expression gives already the profit
maximising supply function. Furthermore, the two following unconditional demand
functions emerge as solution of this optimisation problem:
3 !4/3 1/3 4 1/3 4
75p −2 −1 2w2 75 2 p
x1 = w1 w2 =
1/3
2 +2 −2/3 w1 1/3
2 +2 −2/3 w13 w2
3 !4/3 2/3
p4
75p −2 −1 w1 75
x2 = w1 w 2 = .
21/3 + 2−2/3 2w2 21/3 + 2−2/3 22/3 w12 w22
The profit function is
3 4 1/3
100p4
75 75p 2 w1 w2
π = 1/3 − + 2/3 2 2
2 + 2−2/3 w12 w2 21/3 + 2−2/3 w13 w2 2 w1 w2
3 4
75 p
= (100 − 75)
1/3
2 +2 −2/3 w12 w2
3 4
75 p
= 25 1/3 .
2 + 2−2/3 w12 w2
36
3 Producer Theory
(d) Derive the unconditional input demand functions from the conditional input de-
mands.
Answer One, among several, way is to substitute the conditional input demands
into the definition of cost to obtain the cost function. Calculating marginal cost and
equalising with output price, gives, after re-arrangement, the output supply func-
tion. Substitution of the output supply function into the conditional input demands
results in the unconditional input demand functions. Using the example at hand,
and starting from the equality ∂c/∂y = p gives:
1 1/3 −2/3
y 1/3 2/3 1/3
p= 2 +2 w1 w2
75 100
−3 3 −2 −1
y = 753 21/3 + 2−2/3
p w1 w2 · 100
4
75
x1 (w, p) = 1/3 −2/3
p4 w1−3 w2−1
2 +2
H= − 3 3 − −6Kp
4
− −2Kp
4
w1 w23 w14 w2 w13 w22
4 4
− −4Kp
w12 w22
− −2Kp
w13 w22
− −2Kp
w12 w23
The own supply effect is positive, the own demand effects are negative and all cross-
price effects are symmmetric. Checking the determinants becomes quite tedious.
Intuituively, it should become clear that they all have to be positive.
(g) Assume x2 as a fixed factor in the short run and calculate short-run total cost,
short-run marginal cost, short-run average cost and short-run profit function.
Short-run total cost are obtained by re-arranging the production function to get
x1 on the left-hand side and plugging in into the definition of cost c(w, y) =
1/2
(y/100)2 w1 /x2 + w2 x2 . The first-partial derivative gives the short-run marginal
37
References
1 y 1/2
cost function smc = w /x2 .
50 100 1
The short-run average costs are equal to sac =
y 1/2
w /x2 + w2yx2 .
1002 1
References
Arrow, K. J. & Enthoven, A. C. (1961), ‘Quasi-concave programming’, Econometrica
29(4), 779–800.
38