Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Price Change: Income and Substitution Effects
Price Change: Income and Substitution Effects
Economists often separate the impact of a price change into two components: the substitution effect; and the income effect.
The substitution effect involves the substitution of good x1 for good x2 or viceversa due to a change in relative prices of the two goods. The income effect results from an increase or decrease in the consumers real income or purchasing power as a result of the price change. The sum of these two effects is called the price effect.
Ea I1 xa
X1
*
Ea
I1 xa
X1
X1
To isolate the substitution effect we ask. what would the consumers optimal bundle be if s/he faced the new lower price for X1 but experienced no change in real income? This amounts to returning the consumer to the original indifference curve (I1)
X1
Ea
I2
X1
Ea
Ec I1
xa xc
xb
X1
Ea
Eb Ec I1
I2
Xa
Substitution Effect
Xc
X1
Ea
Eb Ec
I1
Xc
X1
Income Effect
Xb
Ea
Eb Ec xb I1
I2
xa xc
X1
AC
P P1 P1 *
B
M 1 = p1 x1 + p2 x2
A C B
Hicksian (compensated) demand curves cannot be upward-sloping (i.e. substitution effect cannot be positive)
Ea I1 xa
X1
*
Ea I1 xa
X1
X1
Slutsky claimed that if, at the new prices, less income is needed to buy the original bundle then real income has increased more income is needed to buy the original bundle then real income has decreased Slutsky isolated the change in demand due only to the change in relative prices by asking What is the change in demand when the consumers income is adjusted so that, at the new prices, s/he can just afford to buy the original bundle?
X1
xb
X1
X1
X1
Substitution Effect
X1
Income Effect
Ea Ec xa xc
Eb I3
I2
xb
X1
M 1 = p1 x1 + p2 x 2
represent the budget constraint after the Slutsky compensating variation in income has been carried out.
x1 = x ( p1 , p2 , M )
d
Ea xa
M 2 = p1 x1 + p2 x2
M 1 = p1 x1 + p2 x2
X1
M = M 2 M 1 = M = M 2 M 1 = M = M 2 M 1 = M = x1p1 as
p1 x1
+ p2 x 2 - ( p1 x1 + p2 x 2 )
p1 x1 p1 x1
+ p2 x 2 - p1 x1 p2 x 2 - p1 x1 - p1 = p1
M = M 2 M 1 = x1 p1 - p1
gives the change in money income needed to consume the original bundle of goods (at EA)
p1
M=x1p1
x1 = x
p1 ,
p2 , M 1 x
( p1 , p2 , M 1 )
(1)
which is the change in demand for x1 due to the change in its own price, holding M and the price of x2 constant
(2)
(3)
x1 = x
x m x s
Claim
( p ,M ) x ( p , p ,M ) = x (p , p ,M ) x (p , p ,M ) = x (p , p ,M ) x ( p , p ,M )
d p1 ,
1
1
1
x1 = x s + x m
(4)
Show this by substituting equations (1), (2) and (3) into equation (4)
x1 x s xm = + p1 p1 p1
Recall so
M = x1p1
p1 = () M x1
p1 = ()M x1
x1 xs xm = + p1 p1 p1
Gives
x1 x s x m = x1 p1 p1 M
Eb Ea Ec xa xa to xc xb xc I3
I2
The substitution effect is as per usual. But, the income effect is in the opposite direction.
X1
xc to xb
GIFFEN GOODS
In rare cases of extreme inferiority, the income effect may be larger in size than the substitution effect, causing quantity demanded to rise as own price falls. x Such goods are Giffen goods. x Giffen goods are very inferior goods.
x
In rare cases of extreme incomeinferiority, the income effect may be larger in size than the substitution effect, causing quantity demanded to fall as own-price falls.
X1
xc to xb
Slutskys 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 very inferior goods.
No substitution effect
New Budget Constraint
B
Original Budget Constraint
A=C
X1