3
$\begingroup$

Is diminishing nature of utility function in consumer theory stemming from the assumption of convexity on the preference relation $\succsim$?

My understanding is:

$\succsim$ is convex. Then, $u(.)$ is quasiconcave. By the definition of quasiconcavity, the indifference sets are convex. Also, by another definition of quasiconcavity, the cross-section of the utility function versus a commodity shows a concave function indicating the diminishing nature of utility in any good $x$.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps it might be useful to include the definitions you refer to because I think I don't understand this one: "by another definition of quasiconcavity, the cross-section of the utility function versus a commodity shows a concave function". If you mean for any set value of $y$, the function $U(x,y)$ is concave in $x$, I don't think that is true. A counterexample would be $U(x,y) = x^2 \cdot y^2$. This function is quasiconcave but $x^2 \cdot y^2$ is convex in $x$. $\endgroup$ – Giskard Jul 5 '16 at 6:35
1
$\begingroup$

Diminishing marginal utility is a cardinal property. In other words: it is not invariant to arbitrary monotonic transformations. This indicates that it cannot be associated with any restriction on preferences (i.e., over a binary relation over consumption), since restrictions on preferences are by nature ordinal.

To see this, consider preferences defined over $\mathbb{R}_{++}$, perhaps thought of as monetary outcomes. If we take $x \succeq y$ if and only if $x \geq y$, we have a convex preference. Notice that both $U(x) = ln(x)$ and $U(x) = e^x$ represent our preference. Both are quasi-concave functions, although only $ln(x)$ is also concave.

If you are willing to entertain additional functional restrictions on $U$, then you can find axiomatic restrictions on $\succeq$ guaranteeing the concavity of $U$ over $\mathbb R$. The obvious example is the expected utility model, which assumes that $U$ is linear over the set of simple lotteries over $\mathbb R$, i.e., takes the form: $$U(p) = \sum_{supp(p)} p_i u(x_i)$$ where $p$ is a lottery over $\mathbb R$. In this case, the risk aversion axiom---that the certainty equivalent of $p$ is less than the expected value of $p$---will ensure the concavity of $u$.

This is possible only because we have taken a stand on the cardinal normalization of $U$. In other words, any EU representation of $\succeq$ will have a concave $u$ but there still exist other convex non-expected utility representations.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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