2
$\begingroup$

We're learning about Theory of the Maximum. I tend to struggle with correspondences in this context, so I'm trying to work through some practice questions. I will start with some general notation of a canonical maximation problem (which can be found from Rajiv Sethi's lecture here, but reposted below so you don't have to go look).

Parameter set: $\Theta$

Choice set: $X$

Objective function: $f: X \times \Theta \to \mathbb{R}$

Constraint correspondence: $\Gamma: \Theta \rightrightarrows X$

Solution Correspondence: $\Gamma^*(\theta):= argmax_{x \in \Gamma(\theta)} f(x,\theta)$

The maximized value of the objective function: $f^*(x, \theta) = \max_{x \in \Gamma(\theta)} f(x,\theta)$

phew.

Ok, now consider the following maximization problem parametrized by $p \in [0,1]$:

$\max_{(x_1, x_2) \in \mathbb{R}_+^2} x_1 + 5x_2 $

s.t. $px_1 + x_2 \leq 1$

I know that we can write this in the form: $f(x,p) = x_1 + 5x_2$ and $\Gamma(p) = \{(x_1,x_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2_+: px_1 + x_2 \leq 1 \}$. I also know that at $\Gamma(0) = \{(x_1,x_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2_+: x_2 \leq 1 \}$ is not compact-valued, and thus we cannot apply the theorem of the maximum.

In the solution to this question, I see that the optimal policy correspondence is

$\Gamma^*(p) = \begin{cases} \emptyset & \text{if} \: p = 0 \\ \{(1/p,0)\} & \text{if} \: p = (0, 0.2) \\ \{ (x_1, x_2) \in \mathbb{R}_+^2: 0.2x_1 + x_2 = 1 \} & \text{if} \: p = 0.2 \\ \{(0,1)\} & \text{if} \: p = (0.2, 1] \end{cases}$

At $p = 0$, $\Gamma^*$ is empty-valued. For $p>0$ it is compact-valued and upper hemicontinuous. It fails to be lower hemicontinuous at $p=0.2$. Substituting $\Gamma^*(p)$ into the objective function, the value function is $f^*(p) = \max \{1/p , 5 \}$.

I'm not sure how, mechanically, to get to the optimal policy correspondence, as we didn't do anything like this in class, and I'm finding reading materials scarce. I would really appreciate if someone could walk me through the steps as if I'm a 5 year old.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

I think the easiest way is to notice that since the problem is increasing in both arguments, we can assume $px_1 + x_2 = 1$ the budget binds (at least for $p \not =0$).

Substituting our constraint into the objective function, we have: $$ \max_{x_1} x_1 + 5(1 - p x_1) = x_1(1 - 5p) + 5 $$

If $1 - 5p<0$, we choose the smallest possible $x_1$, so $x_1 = 0$ and thus $x_2 = 1$.

If $1 - 5p = 0$, any $x_1$ would maximise the above.

If $1 - 5 p > 0$, you choose the biggest $x_1$ possible, so $x_2 = 0$ and $x_1 = \frac{1}{p}$.

If $p = 0$, there is no constraint on $x_1$, and your objective function is unbounded in $x_1$, so you would choose $x_1 = \infty$, so no solution exists.

$\endgroup$

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.