IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp4818.html

Comparative Statics for a Consumer with Possibly Multiple Optimum Consumption Bundles

Author

Listed:
  • Dasgupta, Indraneel

    (Indian Statistical Institute)

  • Pattanaik, Prasanta K.

    (University of California, Riverside)

Abstract

Non-positivity of the generalized substitution effect, non-positivity of the own-price substitution effect, homogeneity of degree zero in all prices and income, and the law of demand are some of the most primitive comparative static results in the standard revealed preference theory of consumers’ behaviour. These results are however derived for demand functions. The literature does not have corresponding comparative static results for the more plausible case of demand correspondences, where the consumer is permitted to have multiple chosen bundles in a given price-income situation. Using the revealed preference approach to the theory of consumers' behaviour, this note establishes such results for demand correspondences; the analysis can be readily adapted to prove corresponding results in the preference-based approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Dasgupta, Indraneel & Pattanaik, Prasanta K., 2010. "Comparative Statics for a Consumer with Possibly Multiple Optimum Consumption Bundles," IZA Discussion Papers 4818, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp4818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp4818.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1994. "Comparing Equilibria," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 441-459, June.
    2. Hicks, J. R., 1986. "A Revision of Demand Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198285502.
    3. Amartya K. Sen, 1971. "Choice Functions and Revealed Preference," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(3), pages 307-317.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barnett, William A. & Serletis, Apostolos, 2008. "Consumer preferences and demand systems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 210-224, December.
    2. Kala Krishna & Marie Thursby, 1994. "Structural Flexibility: A Partial Ordering," NBER Working Papers 4615, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Baker, Erin, 2005. "Uncertainty and learning in a strategic environment: global climate change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 19-40, January.
    4. Ghosal, Sayantan & Dalton, Patricio, 2013. "Characterizing Behavioral Decisions with Choice Data," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 107, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    5. Boyarchenko, Svetlana & Machowska, Dominika & Topolyan, Iryna, 2025. "Supermodularity and incentive reversal in teams," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 93-105.
    6. Echenique, Federico, 2004. "A characterization of strategic complementarities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 325-347, February.
    7. Clark, Stephen A., 1995. "Indecisive choice theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 155-170, October.
    8. Camacho, Carmen & Kamihigashi, Takashi & Sağlam, Çağrı, 2018. "Robust comparative statics for non-monotone shocks in large aggregative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 288-299.
    9. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    10. Guy Barokas, 2021. "Dynamic choice under familiarity-based attention," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(4), pages 703-720, November.
    11. Marc Fleurbaey & Philippe Mongin, 2005. "The news of the death of welfare economics is greatly exaggerated," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(2), pages 381-418, December.
    12. Pia Weiss, 2003. "Adoption of Product and Process Innovations in Differentiated Markets: The Impact of Competition," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 23(3_4), pages 301-314, December.
    13. Amir, Rabah & Bloch, Francis, 2009. "Comparative statics in a simple class of strategic market games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 7-24, January.
    14. Andres Ruiz Serrano & Andrea Musumeci & Juan Julie Li & Mauricio Ruiz Serrano & Carolina Serrano Barquin, 2025. "Rationality and the exploitation of natural resources: a psychobiological conceptual model for sustainability," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 13167-13189, June.
    15. Giarlotta, Alfio & Petralia, Angelo & Watson, Stephen, 2023. "Context-sensitive rationality: Choice by salience," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Larry Eisenberg & Thomas H. Noe, 2001. "Systemic Risk in Financial Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(2), pages 236-249, February.
    17. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    18. Haiwen Zhou, 2014. "Intermediate Inputs and External Economies," Frontiers of Economics in China-Selected Publications from Chinese Universities, Higher Education Press, vol. 9(2), pages 216-239, June.
    19. Paul H. Y. Cheung & Yusufcan Masatlioglu, 2025. "Frame-dependent Random Utility," Papers 2502.00209, arXiv.org.
    20. Thomas Demuynck, 2009. "Absolute and Relative Time-Consistent Revealed Preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 283-299, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp4818. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.