pollev.com/chrismakler
Characteristics of Utility Functions
Christopher Makler
Stanford University Department of Economics
Econ 50: Lecture 6
Today's Agenda
- Analyze properties of preferences and utility
- Look at some specific utility functions and the preferences they represent
Desirable Properties of Preferences
We've asserted that all (rational) preferences are complete and transitive.
There are some additional properties which are true of some preferences:
- Monotonicity
- Convexity
- Continuity
- Smoothness
Monotonic Preferences: “More is Better"
\text{For any bundles }A=(a_1,a_2)\text{ and }B=(b_1,b_2)\text{, }A \succeq B \text{ if } a_1 \ge b_1 \text{ and } a_2 \ge b_2
\text{In other words, all marginal utilities are positive: }MU_1 \ge 0, MU_2 \ge 0
Nonmonotonic Preferences and Satiation
Some goods provide positive marginal utility only up to a point, beyond which consuming more of them actually decreases your utility.
Strict vs. Weak Monotonicity
Strict monotonicity: any increase in any good strictly increases utility (\(MU > 0\) for all goods)
Weak monotonicity: no increase in any good will strictly decrease utility (\(MU \ge 0\) for all goods)
Example: Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has a dose of 0.3mL, Moderna's has a dose of 0.5mL
Goods vs. Bads
\text{Good: }MU > 0
\text{Bad: }MU < 0
Convex Preferences: “Variety is Better"
Take any two bundles, \(A\) and \(B\), between which you are indifferent.
Would you rather have a convex combination of those two bundles,
than have either of those bundles themselves?
If you would always answer yes, your preferences are convex.
Concave Preferences: “Variety is Worse"
Take any two bundles, \(A\) and \(B\), between which you are indifferent.
Would you rather have a convex combination of those two bundles,
than have either of those bundles themselves?
If you would always answer no, your preferences are convex.
Common Mistakes about Convexity
1. Convexity does not imply you always want equal numbers of things.
2. It's preferences which are convex, not the utility function.
Other Desirable Properties
Continuous: utility functions don't have "jumps"
Smooth: marginal utilities don't have "jumps"
Counter-example: vaccine dose example
Counter-example: Leontief/Perfect Complements utility function
Well-Behaved Preferences
If preferences are strictly monotonic, strictly convex, continuous, and smooth, then:
Indifference curves are smooth, downward-sloping, and bowed in toward the origin
The MRS is diminishing as you move down and to the right along an indifference curve
Good 1 \((x_1)\)
Good 2 \((x_2)\)
"Law of Diminishing MRS"
Preferences over Soda
Suppose one liter of soda gives you 20 "utils" of utility; so each one-liter bottle (good 1) gives you 20 utils,
and each two-liter bottle (good 2) gives you 40 utils.
Which other bundles give you the same utility as
12 one-liter bottles and 6 two-liter bottles (A)?
Which other bundles give you the same utility as
12 one-liter bottles and 2 two-liter bottle (B)?
12
24
Any combination that has 24 total liters
Any combination that has 16 total liters
16
20
4
8
12
24
16
20
4
8
A
B
pollev.com/chrismakler
Preferences over Soda
Suppose one liter of soda gives you 20 "utils" of utility; so each one-liter bottle (good 1) gives you 20 utils,
and each two-liter bottle (good 2) gives you 40 utils.
Which other bundles give you the same utility as
12 one-liter bottles and 6 two-liter bottles (A)?
Which other bundles give you the same utility as
12 one-liter bottles and 2 two-liter bottle (B)?
Any combination that has 24 total liters
Any combination that has 16 total liters
What utility function represents these preferences?
Perfect Substitutes
Goods that can always be exchanged at a constant rate.
-
Red pencils and blue pencils, if you con't care about color
-
One-dollar bills and five-dollar bills
-
One-liter bottles of soda and two-liter bottles of soda
u(x_1,x_2) = ax_1 + bx_2
Preferences over Tea and Biscuits
Charlotte always has 2 biscuits with every cup of tea;
if she has a plate of biscuits and one cup of tea, she'll only eat two. (And if she has a whole pot of tea and 6 biscuits, she'll stop pouring after 3 cups of tea.)
Each (cup + 2 biscuits) gives her 10 utils of joy.
Which other bundles give her the same utility as
3 cups of tea and 4 biscuits (A)?
Which other bundles give her the same utility as
1 cup of tea and 4 biscuits (B)?
3
6
Any combination that has 4 biscuits
and 2 or more cups of tea
Any combination that has 1 cup of tea and
at 2 or more biscuits
4
5
1
2
3
6
4
5
1
2
A
B
pollev.com/chrismakler
What utility function represents these preferences?
Preferences over Tea and Biscuits
Charlotte always has 2 biscuits with every cup of tea;
if she has a plate of biscuits and one cup of tea, she'll only eat two. (And if she has a whole pot of tea and 6 biscuits, she'll stop pouring after 3 cups of tea.)
Each (cup + 2 biscuits) gives her 10 utils of joy.
Which other bundles give her the same utility as
3 cups of tea and 4 biscuits (A)?
Which other bundles give her the same utility as
1 cup of tea and 4 biscuits (B)?
Any combination that has 4 biscuits
and 2 or more cups of tea
Any combination that has 1 cup of tea and
at 2 or more biscuits
Perfect Complements
Goods that you like to consume
in a constant ratio.
Left shoes and right shoes
Sugar and tea
u(x_1,x_2) = \min \left\{\frac{x_1}{a},\frac{x_2}{b}\right\}
Cobb-Douglas
An easy mathematical form with interesting properties.
-
Used for two independent goods (neither complements nor substitutes) -- e.g., t-shirts vs hamburgers
-
Also called "constant shares" for reasons we'll see later.
u(x_1,x_2) = a \ln x_1 + b \ln x_2
u(x_1,x_2) = x_1^ax_2^b
Quasilinear
Generally used when Good 2 is
"dollars spent on other things."
-
Marginal utility of good 2 is constant
-
If good 2 is "dollars spent on other things," utility from good 1 is often given as if it were in dollars.
\text{e.g., }u(x_1,x_2) = \sqrt x_1 + x_2 \text{ or }u(x_1,x_2) = \ln x_1 + x_2
u(x_1,x_2) = v(x_1) + x_2
Concave
The opposite of convex: as you consume more of a good, you become more willing to give up others
-
MRS is increasing in \(x_1\) and/or decreasing in \(x_2\)
-
Indifference curves are bowed away from the origin.
e.g., u(x_1,x_2) = ax_1^2 + bx_2^2
Satiation Point
There is some ideal bundle; utility falls off as you move away from that bundle
-
Not monotonic
-
Realistic, but often the satiation point is far out of reach.
e.g., u(x_1,x_2) = 100 - (x_1 - 10)^2 - (x_2 - 10)^2
“Semi-Satiated"
One good has an ideal quantity; the other doesn't
-
Can be a combination of quasilinear and satiation point
-
Can generate the familiar linear demand curve
e.g., u(x_1,x_2) = 100 - (x_1 - 10)^2 + x_2
Normalizing Utility Functions
One reason to transform a utility function is to normalize it.
This allows us to describe preferences using fewer parameters.
u(x_1,x_2) = ax_1 + bx_2
{1 \over a + b} u(x_1,x_2) = {a \over a + b}x_1 + {b \over a + b}x_2
\hat u(x_1,x_2) = \alpha x_1 + (1 - \alpha)x_2
[ multiply by \({1 \over a + b}\) ]
[ let \(\alpha = {a \over a + b}\) ]
= {a \over a + b}x_1 + \left [1 - {a \over a + b}\right]x_2
Summary
Part I: properties of preferences,
and how preferences can be represented by utility functions.
Next: see examples of utility functions,
and examine how different functional forms
can be used to model different kinds of preferences.
Take the time to understand this material well.
It's foundational for many, many economic models.
Econ 50 | Spring 23 | Lecture 6
By Chris Makler
Econ 50 | Spring 23 | Lecture 6
Preferences and Utility Functions
