I would like to propose to you the following problem and my proposed solution. In particular, I am unsure in how to correctly characterize the Walrasian demand. Can you please have a look at it and express your opinions and corrections?

Let ${x}=(x_1,x_2)$ denote the consumption vector, ${p}=(p_1,p_2)$ denote the price vector, and let $w$ be the consumer's wealth. The utility maximization problem is

\begin{equation*} \max_{{x\geq 0}} \ \ (x_1 + 1)^\alpha (x_2+1)^\beta \ \ \ \text{ s.t. } {p \cdot x} \leq w.\end{equation*}

with $\alpha + \beta = 1$ with $\alpha, \beta > 0$. The Lagrangian function for the UMP is

\begin{equation*} \mathcal{L} ({x}, \lambda, {\mu} ) = (x_1 + 1)^\alpha (x_2+1)^\beta- \lambda ({p \cdot x} -w) + {\mu \cdot x},\end{equation*}

where $\lambda$ and ${\mu} = (\mu_1,\mu_2)$ are the Lagrangian multipliers.

The Kuhn-Tucker necessary conditions for the consumer problem are formed by the following conditions:

\begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_1} = \alpha(x_1+1)^{\alpha-1} (x_2 +1)^\beta - \lambda p_1 + \mu_1&= 0,\\[5pt] \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_2} = \beta(x_2+1)^{\beta-1} (x_1 +1)^\alpha - \lambda p_2 + \mu_2 &= 0, \end{aligned} \end{equation*} with $\lambda \geq 0$ and ${\mu} \geq 0$; the initial constraints,

\begin{equation} {p \cdot x} \leq w \ \ \ \text{ and } \ \ \ {x } \gg 0,\end{equation}

and the complementary slackness conditions,

\begin{equation*} \lambda \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \lambda} = \lambda ({p \cdot x} - w)=0 \ \ \ \ \text{ and } \ \ \ \ \mu_i \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \mu_i} = \mu_i x_i = 0 \ \text{ for } i=1,2. \end{equation*}

Note that under these conditions $\partial u({x})/\partial x_i \leq \lambda p_i$. Since $\nabla u({x}) \gg 0$ and ${p} \gg 0$, this implies $\lambda \geq [\partial u({x})/\partial x_i]/p_i > 0$. In words, the Lagrangian multiplier $\lambda$ is positive and the constraint is binding. Therefore, by $\lambda ({p \cdot x} - w)=0$, we can conclude that ${p \cdot x} = w$ (Walras' law holds).

Interior solutions are of the type ${x} \gg 0$ which imply ${\mu} = {0}$. As we have shown above, because $u({x})$ is an increasing function and since we assume ${p} \gg 0$, Walras' law holds. Thus, the Kuhn-Tucker conditions restrict to the system of equations

$$\begin{align} &\alpha(x_1+1)^{\alpha-1} (x_2 +1)^\beta = \lambda p_1, \qquad &(1)\\[5pt] &\beta(x_2+1)^{\beta-1} (x_1 +1)^\alpha = \lambda p_2, \qquad &(2)\\[5pt] &{x} \gg 0, \qquad &(3)\\[5pt] &{p \cdot x} = w. \qquad &(4) \end{align}$$

By dividing (1) by (2) we obtain the key (tangency) condition for an optimum: the marginal rate of substitution of good 1 with good 2 at the optimum must equal the price ratio of the two goods

\begin{equation*}  \frac{\alpha(x_1+1)^{\alpha-1} (x_2 +1)^\beta}{\beta(x_2+1)^{\beta-1} (x_1 +1)^\alpha}= \frac{p_1}{p_2} \end{equation*}

\begin{equation} \frac{\alpha (x_2 +1)}{\beta(x_1+1)}= \frac{p_1}{p_2} .\qquad (5)\end{equation}

Solving (5) for $x_2$ allows to rewrite the necessary (and sufficient) condition for ${x}=(x_1,x_2) $ to be an optimum in a useful way for our computations

\begin{equation} x_2= \frac{\beta p_1}{\alpha p_2}(x_1+1) -1. \qquad (6) \end{equation}

By substituting (6) into (4) we are now able to solve for $x_1 ({p}, w)$

$$\begin{align} &p_1 x_1 +p_2 \bigg(\frac{\beta p_1}{\alpha p_2}(x_1+1) -1\bigg) = w \nonumber \\[5pt] &p_1 x_1 = \bigg(w - \frac{\beta }{\alpha}p_1 + p_2 \bigg)\frac{\alpha}{\alpha + \beta} \nonumber \\[5pt] &x_1 ({p}, w) = \frac{\alpha (w+p_2)}{p_1} - \beta , \qquad \qquad (7) \end{align}$$

and by substituting (7) into (6) we cans solve for $x_2 ({p}, w)$ \begin{equation*} x_2 ({p}, w) = \frac{\beta (w+p_1)}{p_2} - \alpha .\end{equation*}

For boundary solutions we need to look at the cases where $x_1 = 0$ or $x_2 = 0$ (having both equal zero is uninteresting and certainly not the case for any locally nonsatiated function). The complementary slackness condition $\mu_i x_i = 0 $ for $i=1,2$ implies in the first case $\mu_1 \geq 0$ and in the second $\mu_2 \geq 0$. As before, because $u({x})$ is an increasing function and since we assume ${p} \gg 0$, Walras' law holds (in both cases). \[-7pt]

In the first case, $x_1 = 0$ implies $\mu_1 \geq 0$. Thus, the Kuhn-Tucker conditions restrict to the system of equations

$$\begin{align} &\alpha(x_1+1)^{\alpha-1} (x_2 +1)^\beta \leq \lambda p_1, \qquad &(8)\\[5pt] &\beta(x_2+1)^{\beta-1} (x_1 +1)^\alpha = \lambda p_2,\qquad &(9)\\[5pt] &x_1 = 0, \ \ x_2 > 0, \qquad &(10)\\[5pt] &{p \cdot x} = w. \qquad &(11) \end{align}$$

By substituting the equation in (10) into the budget constraint (11) we obtain the candidate for an optimum, $x_2=w/p_2$. Then, if we divide (8) by (9), and consider $x_1 = 0$, we obtain the necessary (and sufficient) condition for $x_2=w/p_2$ being optimal\footnote{Note that, for boundary solutions, the indifference curve need not be tangent to the budget line.}

\begin{equation*} \frac{\alpha (x_2 +1)}{\beta(x_1+1)} \leq \frac{p_1}{p_2} \end{equation*}

\begin{equation} \frac{\alpha (x_2 +1)}{\beta} \leq \frac{p_1}{p_2}. \end{equation}

Since $\alpha (x_2 +1) / \beta > 0$, there exists some price vector ${p \gg 0}$ that satisfies (12). Hence $x_2=w/p_2$ is optimal for those price vectors ${p}$ that satisfy (12).

In the second case, $x_2 = 0$ implies $\mu_2 \geq 0$. This time we omit most of the algebra and explanation because they bear close similarity to the case above. Jumping to the conclusion: by the Walras' law the candidate for the optimum is $x_1=w/p_1$ and the necessary condition for it being an optimum is

\begin{equation} \frac{\alpha}{\beta(x_1 +1)} \geq \frac{p_1}{p_2}. \end{equation}

Since $\alpha / (x_1 +1)\beta > 0$, there exists some price vector ${p \gg 0}$ that satisfies (12). Hence $x_1=w/p_1$ is optimal for for price vectors ${p}$ that satisfy (13).

Finally, the Walrasian demand in compact notation is

\begin{equation} x({p}, w) = \begin{cases} \bigg(\dfrac{w}{p_1}, 0\bigg) \quad &\text{ if } \ \dfrac{p_1}{p_2} \leq  \dfrac{\alpha}{\beta(x_1 +1)} \\[5pt] \bigg(\dfrac{\alpha (w+p_2)}{p_1} - \beta, \, \dfrac{\beta (w+p_1)}{p_2} - \alpha \bigg) \quad  &\text{ if } \ \dfrac{\alpha}{\beta(x_1 +1)} < \dfrac{p_1}{p_2} < \dfrac{\alpha (x_2 +1)}{\beta}\\[5pt] \bigg(0,\dfrac{w}{p_2}\bigg) \quad &\text{ if } \ \dfrac{p_1}{p_2} \geq \dfrac{\alpha (x_2 +1)}{\beta} \end{cases} \end{equation}

  • $\begingroup$ What are your assumptions on $\alpha$ and $\beta$? $\endgroup$ – Jesper Hybel Dec 14 '20 at 10:25
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I forgot to mention them. $\alpha + \beta = 1$ with $\alpha, \beta > 0$. $\endgroup$ – user_231578 Dec 14 '20 at 10:31
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I think your solution is nice and very well described. Personally I would have solved it using that it is a translation of Cobb-Douglas preferences. I believe that should be possible. $\endgroup$ – Jesper Hybel Dec 14 '20 at 10:34
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. About the Walrasian demand, I could have expressed the conditions on the right as a function of wealth rather than as a function of $x$. My thought is: the Walrasian demand should depend on $p$ and $w$ and having some $x$ in the conditions is in someway "recursive". What do you think? $\endgroup$ – user_231578 Dec 14 '20 at 10:41
  • $\begingroup$ I would agree, that would be nicer. I posted the translation strategy as answer because it was too long for comment. $\endgroup$ – Jesper Hybel Dec 14 '20 at 10:44

To solve $$\max_{x \geq 0} \ (x_1+1)^\alpha(x_2 + 1)^\beta$$

$$s.t. \ \ I \geq p_1x_1 + p_2x_2,$$

I would define $y_1 = x_1+1$ and $y_2 = x_2 + 1$ to get the problem

$$\max_{y \geq 0} \ y_1^\alpha y_2^\beta$$

$$s.t. \ \ \bar I \geq p_1y_1 + p_2y_2,$$

where $\bar I := I + p_1 + p_2$. For $\alpha + \beta = 1$ the solution is well known to be

$$y_1^* = \frac{\alpha \bar I}{p_1},$$

which given the definitions imply that

$$x^*_1 + 1 = \frac{\alpha(I + p_1 + p_2)}{p_1} \Leftrightarrow \\[8pt] x^*_1 = \frac{\alpha(I + p_2)}{p_1} - \beta$$

My guess would be the condition for a border solution is that

$$x_1^* \leq 0 \Leftrightarrow \frac{\alpha(I + p_2)}{p_1} - \beta \leq 0$$

which is equivalent to

$$I \leq \frac{\beta p_1}{\alpha} - p_2.$$

Does this make any sense? Well it does in so far that if $p_1$ is very high then consumer want buy anything of $x_1$.

  • $\begingroup$ This trick is nice, but what about eventual boundary solutions? $\endgroup$ – user_231578 Dec 14 '20 at 10:45
  • $\begingroup$ Well again depending on knowledge of CD preferences you know indefference curves never cut 0 but moving the origin to (1,1) indifference curves can cut axis, but that will simply be as you find: All income to one good solution. I have not however given any thought to how to find the conditions for when that would occur. So I agree as it stands this strategy is incomplete. $\endgroup$ – Jesper Hybel Dec 14 '20 at 10:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I guess you can derive the condition for $x_2$ as border solution by setting the solution found for $x_1 \leq 0$ $\endgroup$ – Jesper Hybel Dec 14 '20 at 10:58

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.