Take the 2-minute tour ×
Economics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional and academic economists and analysts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Does a monotonic transformation of a homothetic utility function imply the preference relation on the set of consumption bundles is still homothetic?

Obviously, if a utility function on a set of consumption bundles is homothetic, then the preference relation is homothetic.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Yes. We know that a monotonic transformation of a utility function still represents the same preferences and as the old utility function represented homothetic preferences the new one does, too.

As an easy example you could look at Cobb-Douglas utility functions of the form $u(x,y) = a\left(x y\right)^\alpha$. For $\alpha = \frac12$ the utility function is homogeneous of degree 1, but for every $\alpha,a>0,$ the preference relation is homogeneous of degree 1.

We never used homothetic as a property of the utility function to answer your question (as it works for every utility function). A homothetic utility function is, to the best of my knowledge, not very clearly defined, I have see two different versions:

  1. Homothetic as different name for homogeneous of degree 1
  2. A homothetic utility function is a utility function that represents a homothetic preference relation.

Which means, with definition 2 Cobb-Douglas utility functions with equal weights are always homothetic, with definition 2 only some of them are: $$u(tx,ty) = (tx)^\frac12 (ty)^\frac12 = t xy = t u(x,y)$$ and some are not $$u(tx,ty) = (tx) (ty) = t^2 xy \neq t u(x,y)$$

share|improve this answer
    
Wait, I thought Cobb-Douglas was homothetic for all the utility functions because $$u(tx,ty) = (tx)^\alpha (ty)^{1-\alpha}= t x^\alpha y^{1-\alpha} $$ is that wrong? Is only the preference relation homothetic for all $\alpha$? If so, why? –  Stan Shunpike Apr 5 at 14:14
    
@StanShunpike Your CD function and mine are not the same, they are both special cases. In mine both exponents are the same, in yours they add up to 1. I actually don't use homothetic for utility functions, as people seem to use different definitions for homothetic utility functions: One being "its preference relation is homothetic" the other one is "it is homogeneous of degree 1", I think I will try to make that clear in the answer. Just do the same calculations you have done with your utility function with mine (and $\alpha =1$), then you will see it is not homogeneous of degree 1. –  The Almighty Bob Apr 5 at 14:58
    
So, I hope this helps. –  The Almighty Bob Apr 5 at 15:10
    
So if I understand you correctly, in your answer you showed the special cases you and I mentioned are homothetic utility functions. They therefore have a homothetic preference relation. Is that the basic idea? –  Stan Shunpike Apr 5 at 17:28
    
Mine is only homogeneous of degree 1 for the case $\alpha = 1/2$, yours always is. But having one is enough, as every other of mine is just a monotonic transformation of the one that is. But yes, it is the basic idea. –  The Almighty Bob Apr 5 at 18:16

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.