4
$\begingroup$

Hotelling's lemma is stated as:

$$\frac{\partial \pi}{\partial p}=y$$

knowing however that on the more basic level, output $y$ is determined by the input(s) $x(p,w)$,let the profit function be defined as:

$$\pi=py(x(p,w))-wx(p,w)$$

taking the derivative with respect to $p$

$$\frac{\partial\pi}{\partial p}=y(x(p,w))+p\frac{\partial y(x(p,w))}{\partial x(p,w)}\frac{\partial x(p,w)}{\partial p}-w \frac{\partial x(p,w)}{\partial p}$$

Wouldn't this be a more accurate definition of hotelling's lemma?

I'm speculating considering some of the critsisim I read on hotelling's lemma in applied work. Namely: Duality, Optimization, and Microeconomic Theory: Pitfalls for the Applied Researcher

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The wikipedia page for Hotelling's Lemma is abysmal, but the one for the Envelope theorem is good, you should read that one. $\endgroup$ – Giskard Apr 27 '18 at 19:52
4
$\begingroup$

You are basically on the right track but might have been carried away by not writing down function arguments. The profit function $\pi$ has arguments $p$ and $w$; don't drop them.

In Hotelling's lemma, $y$ is the output. On the other hand, you write $y$ for the production function. Let's make things clear by writing neutrally $f$ for the production function. The profit-maximizing input choice is $x(p,w)$, so the quantity produced is $f\big(x(p,w)\big)$, the correct meaning of $y$ in Hotelling's lemma.

Hotelling's lemma then becomes $$\frac{\partial \pi(p,w)}{\partial p}=f\big(x(p,w)\big).$$ The profit function is given by $$\pi(p,w)=pf\big(x(p,w)\big)-wx(p,w).$$

Taking the derivative with respect to $p$ gives us $$\frac{\partial \pi(p,w)}{\partial p}=f\big(x(p,w)\big)+pf'\big(x(p,w)\big)\frac{\partial x(p,w)}{\partial p}-w\frac{\partial x(p,w)}{\partial p}.$$ This is pretty much what you got there above.

Now $x(p,w)$ is by definition a maximizer of $pf(x)-wx$. We have the first order condition $pf'(x^*)=w$. Therefore, $$pf'\big(x(p,w)\big)-w=0,$$ which implies $$pf'\big(x(p,w)\big)\frac{\partial x(p,w)}{\partial p}-w\frac{\partial x(p,w)}{\partial p}=0$$ This reduces our expression for ${\partial \pi(p,w)}/{\partial p}$ to Hotelling's lemma.

This tell's us also what the important message of Hotelling's lemma is: Indirect effects don't matter. A marginal change in prices has a direct effect on profits since the output gets multiplied by a different number. There is also an indirect effect that comes from firms adjusting how much to produce. Hotelling's lemma just tells us that the latter effect is zero for a profit-maximizing firm, which need not do much adjusting. At a profit maximum, the marginal effect of adjusting production on profits is zero.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "$pf'\big(x(p,w)\big)\frac{\partial x(p,w)}{\partial p}-w\frac{\partial x(p,w)}{\partial p}=0$ This reduces our expression for ${\partial \pi(p,w)}/{\partial p}$ to Hotelling's lemma." This is astounding. I'm simulating this result and am amazed with it. $\endgroup$ – EconJohn Apr 29 '18 at 2:31
1
$\begingroup$

With subjects like Hotelling's lemma precise notation is crucial.

The function $\Pi(a,b,c,d)$ is defined as $$ \Pi(a,b,c,d) \triangleq a \cdot c - b \cdot d. $$ Now if we want to make this the profit function $$ \Pi (p,w,y(p,w),x(p,w)) = p \cdot y(p,w) - w \cdot x(p,w), $$ we should use the input where $y(p,w)$ and $x(p,w)$ are solutions of the constrained optimization problem $$ \begin{align*} \max_{y,x} \ & p \cdot y - w \cdot x \\ s.t. \ & f(x) = y \end{align*} $$

There is difference between $$ \frac{\text{d}\Pi (p,w,y(p,w),x(p,w))}{\text{d}p} $$ and $$ \frac{\partial\Pi (p,w,y(p,w),x(p,w))}{\partial p}. $$

You seem to be doing $$ \frac{\text{d}\Pi (p,w,y(p,w),x(p,w))}{\text{d}p} = y(p,w) + p\frac{\partial y(p,w)}{\partial p} -w \frac{\partial x(p,w)}{\partial p} $$ whih is not trivially the same as $$ \frac{\partial \Pi (p,w,y(p,w),x(p,w))}{\partial p} = y(p,w). $$


A trivial example to illustrate the difference:

Let the function $A(x,y) \triangleq x \cdot y$ measure the area of a rectangle with sides the length of $x$ and $y$. Then the partial derivate w.r.t. $x$ $$ \frac{\partial A(x,y)}{\partial x} = y $$ measures how much the size of the rectangle would increase if I were to increase size x. Now imagine that I am interested in squares specifically, so I look at rectangles where if one size has length $x$, the length $y$ of the other size is $y(x) = x$. Then the function becomes $$ A(x,y(x)) = x \cdot y(x) = x^2. $$ If I now consider how much the size of the square would increase if I were to increase only one side, the answer is still $$ \frac{\partial A(x,y(x))}{\partial x} = y(x) = x. $$ (This is the definition of partial derivatives.) But if I want to consider how much the area of the square would change if I were to increase the parameter determining the length of both sides I should take the full derivative $$ \frac{\text{d} A(x,y(x))}{\text{d} x} = \frac{\text{d} x^2}{\text{d} x} = 2x. $$ Notice that in this case $$ \frac{\text{d} A(x,y(x))}{\text{d} x} \neq \frac{\partial A(x,y(x))}{\partial x}. $$ Hotelling's lemma tells you that some types of constrained optimization problems are magic because there this equation holds.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.