Marshallian demand function: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
en>Addbot m Bot: Migrating 7 interwiki links, now provided by Wikidata on d:q1902828 (Report Errors) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In [[microeconomics]], the '''expenditure minimization problem''' is another perspective on the [[utility maximization problem]]: "how much money do I need to reach a certain level of happiness?". This question comes in two parts. Given a consumer's [[utility function]], prices, and a utility target, | |||
* how much money would the consumer need? This is answered by the [[expenditure function]]. | |||
* what could the consumer buy to meet this utility target while minimizing expenditure? This is answered by the [[Hicksian demand function]]. | |||
==Expenditure function== | |||
Formally, the [[expenditure function]] is defined as follows. Suppose the consumer has a utility function <math>u</math> defined on <math>L</math> commodities. Then the consumer's expenditure function gives the amount of money required to buy a package of commodities at given prices <math>p</math> that give utility of at least <math>u^*</math>, | |||
:<math>e(p, u^*) = \min_{x \in \geq{u^*}} p \cdot x</math> | |||
where | |||
:<math>\geq{u^*} = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^L_+ : u(x) \geq u^*\}</math> | |||
is the set of all packages that give utility at least as good as <math>u^*</math>. | |||
==Hicksian demand correspondence== | |||
Secondly, the '''Hicksian demand function''' <math>h(p, u^*)</math> is defined as the cheapest package that gives the desired utility. It can be defined in terms of the expenditure function with the [[Marshallian demand function]] | |||
:<math>h(p, u^*) = x(p, e(p, u^*)). \,</math> | |||
The relationship between the [[utility function]] and [[Marshallian demand]] in the Utility Maximization Problem mirrors the relationship between the [[expenditure function]] and [[Hicksian demand]] in the [[Expenditure Minimization Problem]]. It is also possible that the Hicksian and Marshallian demand are not unique (i.e. there is more than one commodity bundle that satisfies the expenditure minimization problem), then the demand is a [[Correspondence (mathematics)|correspondence]], and not a function. This does not happen, and the demands are functions, under the assumption of [[local nonsatiation]]. | |||
==See also== | |||
* [[Utility maximization problem]] | |||
==References== | |||
*{{cite book |authorlink=Andreu Mas-Colell |last=Mas-Colell |first=Andreu |last2=Whinston |first2=Michael |lastauthoramp=yes |last3=Green |first3=Jerry |year=1995 |title=Microeconomic Theory |location=Oxford |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-507340-1 }} | |||
==External links== | |||
*[http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fuleky/anatomy/anatomy.html Anatomy of Cobb-Douglas Type Utility Functions in 3D] | |||
[[Category:Consumer theory]] | |||
[[Category:Optimal decisions]] |
Revision as of 12:21, 26 February 2013
In microeconomics, the expenditure minimization problem is another perspective on the utility maximization problem: "how much money do I need to reach a certain level of happiness?". This question comes in two parts. Given a consumer's utility function, prices, and a utility target,
- how much money would the consumer need? This is answered by the expenditure function.
- what could the consumer buy to meet this utility target while minimizing expenditure? This is answered by the Hicksian demand function.
Expenditure function
Formally, the expenditure function is defined as follows. Suppose the consumer has a utility function defined on commodities. Then the consumer's expenditure function gives the amount of money required to buy a package of commodities at given prices that give utility of at least ,
where
is the set of all packages that give utility at least as good as .
Hicksian demand correspondence
Secondly, the Hicksian demand function is defined as the cheapest package that gives the desired utility. It can be defined in terms of the expenditure function with the Marshallian demand function
The relationship between the utility function and Marshallian demand in the Utility Maximization Problem mirrors the relationship between the expenditure function and Hicksian demand in the Expenditure Minimization Problem. It is also possible that the Hicksian and Marshallian demand are not unique (i.e. there is more than one commodity bundle that satisfies the expenditure minimization problem), then the demand is a correspondence, and not a function. This does not happen, and the demands are functions, under the assumption of local nonsatiation.
See also
References
- 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.
My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534