2
$\begingroup$

I'm a bit confused about lexicographic preferences and whether they abide by the strict monotonicity axiom.

The definition we were given for strict monotonicity is:

For any two bundles $x$ and $y$, if $x_i \succsim y_i$ for each good $i$, then $x$ is strictly preferred to $y$

The preferences are summarized below:

(1) The bundle that has more of good 1 is better, regardless of the amount of good 2.

(2) If the amount of good 1 is the same, the bundle that has more of good 2 is better.

I'm confused about part (1), because a bundle can have much more of good 2 but still be preferred if it has a bit more of good 1, e.g. $(2,5)$ is preferred to $(1,100)$, even though it has so much more in it. Surely that can't follow the provided definition of strict monotonicity (or am I really thick)?

Thanks!

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Your definition of strict monotonicity looks incomplete as it would suggest that if $x=y$ then $x$ is strictly preferred to $y$ and $y$ is strictly preferred to $x$. Do you need to add "and $x_j \succ y_j$ for some good $j$"? $\endgroup$
    – Henry
    Commented Mar 20, 2017 at 8:37

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

It seems you are not confused about part (1) because that's exactly what it means.

Lexicographic preferences are monotone. Monotonicity means more is better. If I have more of every good in the bundle, then I like that bundle more. This is still true for lexicographic preferences, even though parts of the bundle may not matter. A condition for monotonicity is e.g. that (5,4) is preferred to (3,1). In other words if 5>3 and 4>1 then the first bundle is preferred. This is true for lexicographic preferences.

Your definitions of strict monotonicity and lexicographic preferences seem to deviate a bit from conventional definitions though. Here is a proof using your definitions.

Proof:

Let us compare two bundles with $n$ elements each: $x=(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)$ and $y=(y_1, y_2, ...,y_n)$

It is best to start with the if statement when going about proving such claims. The condition and therefore starting point is $x_1>y_1$ and $x_2>y_2$, .... , and $x_n>y_n$.

In that case since $x_1>y_1$ we have according to your preference definition that bundle $x$ is preferred to bundle $y$. Furthermore we have that bundle $y$ is not preferred to bundle $x$. So bundle $x$ is strictly preferred.

Hence, we have shown that if $x_i$>$y_i$ for each $i$, then $x$ is preferred (because in that case $x_1 > y_1$), which is your definition of monotonicity. The preferences are therefore monotonic.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ To complete this (correct) answer, my impression is that the OP was confused about the direction of the implication. Strict monotonicity means that $(x_1>y_1,x_2>y_2)$ implies that $x$ is stricly preferred to $y$. But it does not means that the reverse implication is true. In other words, $x$ being strictly preferred to $y$ does not imply that $(x_1>y_1,x_2>y_2)$, which is why the example with $(2,5)$ and $(1,100)$ does not violate strict monotonicity. $\endgroup$
    – Oliv
    Commented Mar 19, 2017 at 11:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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