Skip to main content

On the Definitions of Giffen and Inferior Goods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover New Insights into the Theory of Giffen Goods

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems ((LNE,volume 655))

Abstract

We consider Giffen goods for the very general setting of an upper semi-continuous utility function. Two not equivalent definitions for this notions are discussed. Concerning this we show that there exists a (well-defined) non-decreasing demand function \({\mathbb{R}}_{++} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) that is nowhere strictly increasing. Also we reconsider the relation between Giffen and inferior goods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Indeed: for subsets A and B of \(\mathbb{R}\), A ≤ B means a ≤ b (a ∈ A, b ∈ B) and A < B means a < b (a ∈ A, b ∈ B).

  2. 2.

    But also see Exercise 2.F.13 in [5].

  3. 3.

    ‘Nowhere monotone’ means that there is no non-degenerate interval on which the function is monotone.

  4. 4.

    Also see the contribution [7] in this book for a relation in the sense of (2).

  5. 5.

    We do not discriminate between a set with one element (i.e. a singleton) and the element itself.

  6. 6.

    That is, a subset of \({\mathbb{R}}_{++}\) with \(\#\mathcal{P}\geq 2\).

  7. 7.

    Indeed: suppose good i is not Giffen. This implies that for every \(({\mathbf{p}}_{\hat{\imath }}; m)\) and price section \(\mathcal{P}\) good i is not Giffen on \(\mathcal{P}\) at \(({\mathbf{p}}_{\hat{\imath }}; m)\). In particular for every p i  < p i and \(({\mathbf{p}}_{\hat{\imath }}; m)\), \(\breve{{x}}_{i}({p}_{i}\prime ) <\breve{ {x}}_{i}({p}_{i})\) does not hold. So, because \(\#\breve{{x}}_{i}(p) = 1\;(p > 0)\), we have for every p i  < p i and \(({\mathbf{p}}_{\hat{\imath }}; m)\) that \(\breve{{x}}_{i}({p}_{i}\prime ) \geq \breve{ {x}}_{i}({p}_{i})\). It follows for every \(({\mathbf{p}}_{\hat{\imath }}; m)\) that good i is ordinary on \({\mathbb{R}}_{++}\) at \(({\mathbf{p}}_{\hat{\imath }}; m)\). Thus good i is ordinary.

  8. 8.

    Here is a proof by contradiction: so suppose u is Giffen. Then there is some price section \(\mathcal{P}\) and budget m such that good 1 is Giffen on \(\mathcal{P}\) at m. Let \({p}_{a},{p}_{b}\,\in \,\mathcal{P}\) with p a  < p b . Then \(\breve{{x}}_{1}({p}_{a}) <\breve{ {x}}_{1}({p}_{b})\).

    Because of the upper semi-continuity of u the maximum v(p; m) of †  p; m is well-defined. Because \(\breve{{x}}_{i}({p}_{b}) \subseteq [0,m/{p}_{b}] \subseteq [0,m/{p}_{a}]\), it follows that, v(p b ; m) < v(p a ; m). Because \(\breve{{x}}_{1}({p}_{a}) <\breve{ {x}}_{1}({p}_{b})\), it follows that \(\breve{{x}}_{1}({p}_{a}) \subseteq [0,m/{p}_{b}]\) and therefore v(p a ; m) < v(p b ; m), a contradiction.

  9. 9.

    See the contribution [2] in this book for an overview of concrete Giffen utility functions with various theoretical properties.

  10. 10.

    That is, a subset of \({\mathbb{R}}_{+}\) with \(\#\mathcal{M}\geq 2\).

  11. 11.

    Here is a proof by contradiction. Suppose u is inferior. Then there is a budget section \(\mathcal{M}\) and price p 1 such that good 1 is inferior on \(\mathcal{M}\) at p 1. Let \({m}_{a},\;{m}_{b} \in \mathcal{M}\) with m a  < m b . Then \(\hat{{x}}_{1}({m}_{a}) >\hat{ {x}}_{1}({m}_{b})\). Because \(\hat{{x}}_{1}({m}_{a}) \subseteq [0,{m}_{a}/{p}_{1}] \subseteq [0,{m}_{b}/p]\), it follows that v(p; m a ) < v(p; m b ). Because \(\hat{{x}}_{1}({m}_{b}) <\hat{ {x}}_{1}({m}_{a})\), it follows that \(\hat{{x}}_{1}({m}_{b}) \subseteq [0,{m}_{a}/p]\) and therefore v(p; m b ) < v(p; m a ), a contradiction.

  12. 12.

    Here is a proof by contradiction. Suppose \(\inf \mathcal{M}\leq 0\). Then \(\inf \mathcal{M} = 0\). Take \({m}_{0} \in \mathcal{M}\) with \(\hat{{x}}_{i}({m}_{0}) > 0\). Because \(\inf \mathcal{M} = 0\) and \(\min ({p}_{i}\hat{{x}}_{i}({m}_{0}),{m}_{0}) > 0\), there is \(m \in \mathcal{M}\) with \(m <\min ({p}_{i}\hat{{x}}_{i}({m}_{0}),{m}_{0})\). Now \({p}_{i}\hat{{x}}_{i}({m}_{0}) > m \geq {p}_{i} \cdot \hat{ {x}}_{i}(m) > {p}_{i}\hat{{x}}_{i}({m}_{0})\), a contradiction.

  13. 13.

    Also see Example 8 in the contribution [2] in this book.

  14. 14.

    Note that m′≥ 0.

  15. 15.

    We use for \(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2}\) the notation \({I}_{[\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}]}\; :=\;\{ (1 - \lambda )\mathbf{x} + \lambda \mathbf{y}\;\vert \;0 \leq \lambda \leq 1\}\).

  16. 16.

    Even with the following additional properties: \(\vert F\prime (x)\vert \leq 1\;(x \in \mathbb{R})\), \(\{x \in \mathbb{R}\;\vert \;F\prime (x) = 0\}\) is dense in \(\mathbb{R}\) and F′ is over no interval Riemann-integrable.

  17. 17.

    For if F(a) > F(b), then replace F by − F. And if F(a) = F(b), there is always a constant c with a < c < b with F(a)≠F(c). Now replace F(x) by \(\tilde{F}(x)\; :=\; \left (a\frac{b-c} {b-a} + \frac{c-a} {b-a}x\right )\). Now \(\tilde{F}(a) = F(a)\neq F(c) =\tilde{ F}b\). If \(\tilde{F}(a) >\tilde{ F}(b)\), then replace \(\tilde{F}\) by \(-\tilde{F}\).

References

  1. I. Dasgupta and P. K. Pattanaik. Comparative statics for a consumer with multiple optimum consumption bundles. IZA Discussion Paper 4818, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. W. Heijman and P. H. M. von Mouche. A child garden of concrete Giffen utility functions: a theoretical review. 655:69–88, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Y. Katznelson and K. Stromberg. Everywhere differentiable, nowhere monotone, functions. American Mathematical Monthly, 81:349–353, 1974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. H. Liebhafsky. New thoughts about inferior goods. American Economic Review, 59:931–934, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. Mas-Colell, M. D. Whinston, and J. R. Green. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. van Rooy and W. Schikhof. A Second Course on Real Functions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. Sørenson. Giffen demand for several goods. 655:97–104, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre von Mouche .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

von Mouche, P., Pijnappel, W. (2012). On the Definitions of Giffen and Inferior Goods. In: Heijman, W., von Mouche, P. (eds) New Insights into the Theory of Giffen Goods. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 655. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21777-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21777-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21776-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21777-7

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics