prelims_Micro Prelim ANSWERS August 2007

prelims_Micro Prelim ANSWERS August 2007 - University of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
University of California, Davis Date: August 30, 2007 Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Department of Economics Time: 5 hours Microeconomics Reading Time: 20 minutes PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION FOR THE Ph.D. DEGREE ANSWER KEY Part 1. The present and the future 1.1. Optimization problem max u ( x 1 , x 2 ) subject to p 1 x 1 + p 2 x 2 < p 1 ω 1 + p 2 ω 2 , with solution function 112 212 ˆˆ ((,) ,(,) ) xpp xpp (the “Jevonsian” demand function), where p 1 , p 2 and r are related by the equality 1 2 1 p r p = + . (1) x 1 slope = 1 2 (1 ) p r p =− + ω 1 ω 2 x 2
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 1.2. Slutsky equation ˆ ˆˆ () (,(,() ) ) (,() ) kk k j j jj xh x pp v p w p p w p x w ∂∂ =− ω % , j , k = 1, 2, (2) where: p = ( p 1 , p 2 ), , h 11 2 2 ˆ wp p p ≡ω k is the Hicksian demand function and v is the indirect utility function. 1.3(a) Without further information, what can we say about the sign of 112 1 ˆ (, ) xpp p when the consumer is a borrower? A saver? Autarkic? From (2) [ 111 ˆ xhx x ppw ∂∂∂ ] = −− % ω . (3) By the Slutsky Theorem, 1 1 0 h p (the substitution effect is nonpositive), and in fact 1 1 0 h p < under our assumptions (in particular, the utility function is differentiable with nonzero gradient). Moreover, because good 1 is normal, 1 0 x w > % . If the consumer is a borrower, [ ] 0 x −ω> , hence the wealth effect [] 1 x x w % ω is negative. The total effect is then the sum of two negative terms, and is therefore negative. Intuitively, if you are a borrower you are a (net) buyer of present consumption (good 1). An increase in the price of a good that you buy reduces your purchasing power, which tends to decrease your demand for all normal goods. The wealth effect then reinforces the substitution effect, and the demand for good 1 unambiguously decreases. If the consumer is autarkic, then [ ] 0 x −ω= , hence the wealth effect is zero. The total effect is then equal to the substitution effect, negative. If the consumer is a saver, then [ ] 0 x −ω< , hence the wealth effect is positive: Now you are selling good 1, and an increase in its price raises your purchasing power. The substitution effect and the wealth effect move in opposite directions, and nothing can be said on the sign of 1 ˆ p in the absence of further information. Table 1 summarizes.
Background image of page 2
3 Borrower Autarkic Saver 112 1 ˆ (, ) xpp p < 0 < 0 ? Table 1. Good 1 normal; 1 ˆ p . 1.3(b) Without further information, what can we say about the direction of the change in present consumption as the interest rate r rises when the consumer is a borrower? A saver? Autarkic? By (1) and the 0-homogeneity of ˆ , we can write the demand for present consumption as a function of r as 11 ˆ ˆˆ () ( 1 ,1 ) x rx r =+ , i. e., an increase in r is equivalent to an increase in p 1 . Then 1 ˆ ( ) dx r x r dr p ∂+ = , with sign given by (3). Hence, it follows from 1.3(a) that an increase in the interest rate reduces the demand for present consumption if the consumer is a borrower or autarkic, whereas the effect is indeterminate when the consumer is a saver. Table 2 summarizes.
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/09/2010 for the course ECON 200D taught by Professor Pontusrendahl during the Winter '06 term at UC Davis.

Page1 / 18

prelims_Micro Prelim ANSWERS August 2007 - University of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online