|
|
CHAPTER 21 |
|
(a) Higher Interest Rate Raises Saving |
|
Consumption |
|
Consumption |
when Old |
BC2 |
when Old |
1. A higher interest rate rotates the budget constraint outward . . .
BC1
I 2
I 1
THE THEORY OF CONSUMER CHOICE |
485 |
(b) Higher Interest Rate Lowers Saving
BC2
1. A higher interest rate rotates the budget constraint outward . . .
BC1
I 1 I 2
0 |
|
|
|
Consumption |
0 |
|
|
|
Consumption |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. . . . resulting in lower |
when Young |
|
2. . . . resulting in higher |
when Young |
|
|
|
|
|
consumption when young |
|
|
consumption when young |
|
|
and, thus, higher saving. |
|
|
and, thus, lower saving. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AN INCREASE IN THE INTEREST RATE. In both panels, an increase in the interest rate |
Figur e 21-16 |
|
shifts the budget constraint outward. In panel (a), consumption when young falls, and |
|
|
|
consumption when old rises. The result is an increase in saving when young. In panel (b), |
|
|
consumption in both periods rises. The result is a decrease in saving when young. |
|
|
|
|
|
The end result, of course, depends on both the income and substitution effects. If the substitution effect of a higher interest rate is greater than the income effect, Sam saves more. If the income effect is greater than the substitution effect, Sam saves less. Thus, the theory of consumer choice says that an increase in the interest rate could either encourage or discourage saving.
Although this ambiguous result is interesting from the standpoint of economic theory, it is disappointing from the standpoint of economic policy. It turns out that an important issue in tax policy hinges in part on how saving responds to interest rates. Some economists have advocated reducing the taxation of interest and other capital income, arguing that such a policy change would raise the after-tax interest rate that savers can earn and would thereby encourage people to save more. Other economists have argued that because of offsetting income and substitution effects, such a tax change might not increase saving and could even reduce it. Unfortunately, research has not led to a consensus about how interest rates affect saving. As a result, there remains disagreement among economists about whether changes in tax policy aimed to encourage saving would, in fact, have the intended effect.
DO THE POOR PREFER TO RECEIVE CASH
OR IN-KIND TRANSFERS?
Paul is a pauper. Because of his low income, he has a meager standard of living. The government wants to help. It can either give Paul $1,000 worth of food
486 |
PART SEVEN |
ADVANCED TOPIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) The Constraint Is Not Binding |
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Transfer |
|
|
In-Kind Transfer |
|
|
Food |
|
|
|
Food |
|
|
|
|
|
BC2 (with $1,000 cash) |
|
BC2 (with $1,000 food stamps) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BC1 |
|
|
BC1 |
|
|
|
|
|
B |
|
|
B |
|
|
$1,000 |
|
|
I2 |
$1,000 |
|
|
|
I2 |
|
|
|
A |
|
|
A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I1 |
|
|
I1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
Nonfood |
0 |
|
|
|
|
Nonfood |
|
|
|
|
Consumption |
|
|
|
|
|
Consumption |
|
|
|
|
(b) The Constraint Is Binding |
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Transfer |
|
|
In-Kind Transfer |
|
|
Food |
|
|
|
Food |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BC2 (with $1,000 cash) |
|
BC2 (with $1,000 food stamps) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BC1 |
|
|
BC1 |
|
|
$1,000 |
|
|
B |
$1,000 |
|
A |
|
B |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I2 |
|
|
|
|
I1 |
I2 |
|
|
|
|
I1 |
|
|
|
|
I3 |
|
0 |
|
|
Nonfood |
0 |
|
|
|
|
Nonfood |
|
|
|
|
Consumption |
|
|
|
|
|
Consumption |
Figur e 21-17
CASH VERSUS IN-KIND TRANSFERS. Both panels compare a cash transfer and a similar in-kind transfer of food. In panel (a), the in-kind transfer does not impose a binding constraint, and the consumer ends up on the same indifference curve under the two policies. In panel (b), the in-kind transfer imposes a binding constraint, and the consumer ends up on a lower indifference curve with the in-kind transfer than with the cash transfer.
(perhaps by issuing him food stamps) or simply give him $1,000 in cash. What does the theory of consumer choice have to say about the comparison between these two policy options?
Figure 21-17 shows how the two options might work. If the government gives Paul cash, then the budget constraint shifts outward. He can divide the extra cash
CHAPTER 21 THE THEORY OF CONSUMER CHOICE |
487 |
between food and nonfood consumption however he pleases. By contrast, if the government gives Paul an in-kind transfer of food, then his new budget constraint is more complicated. The budget constraint has again shifted out. But now the budget constraint has a kink at $1,000 of food, for Paul must consume at least that amount in food. That is, even if Paul spends all his money on nonfood consumption, he still consumes $1,000 in food.
The ultimate comparison between the cash transfer and in-kind transfer depends on Paul’s preferences. In panel (a), Paul would choose to spend at least $1,000 on food even if he receives a cash transfer. Therefore, the constraint imposed by the in-kind transfer is not binding. In this case, his consumption moves from point A to point B regardless of the type of transfer. That is, Paul’s choice between food and nonfood consumption is the same under the two policies.
In panel (b), however, the story is very different. In this case, Paul would prefer to spend less than $1,000 on food and spend more on nonfood consumption. The cash transfer allows him discretion to spend the money as he pleases, and he consumes at point B. By contrast, the in-kind transfer imposes the binding constraint that he consume at least $1,000 of food. His optimal allocation is at the kink, point C. Compared to the cash transfer, the in-kind transfer induces Paul to consume more food and less of other goods. The in-kind transfer also forces Paul to end up on a lower (and thus less preferred) indifference curve. Paul is worse off than if he had the cash transfer.
Thus, the theory of consumer choice teaches a simple lesson about cash versus in-kind transfers. If an in-kind transfer of a good forces the recipient to consume more of the good than he would on his own, then the recipient prefers the cash transfer. If the in-kind transfer does not force the recipient to consume more of the good than he would on his own, then the cash and in-kind transfer have exactly the same effect on the consumption and welfare of the recipient.
QUICK QUIZ: Explain how an increase in the wage can potentially decrease the amount that a person wants to work.
CONCLUSION: DO PEOPLE
REALLY THINK THIS WAY?
The theory of consumer choice describes how people make decisions. As we have seen, it has broad applicability. It can explain how a person chooses between Pepsi and pizza, work and leisure, consumption and saving, and on and on.
At this point, however, you might be tempted to treat the theory of consumer choice with some skepticism. After all, you are a consumer. You decide what to buy every time you walk into a store. And you know that you do not decide by writing down budget constraints and indifference curves. Doesn’t this knowledge about your own decisionmaking provide evidence against the theory?
The answer is no. The theory of consumer choice does not try to present a literal account of how people make decisions. It is a model. And, as we first discussed in Chapter 2, models are not intended to be completely realistic.
The best way to view the theory of consumer choice is as a metaphor for how consumers make decisions. No consumer (except an occasional economist) goes
488 |
PART SEVEN ADVANCED TOPIC |
through the explicit optimization envisioned in the theory. Yet consumers are aware that their choices are constrained by their financial resources. And, given those constraints, they do the best they can to achieve the highest level of satisfaction. The theory of consumer choice tries to describe this implicit, psychological process in a way that permits explicit, economic analysis.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the test of a theory is in its applications. In the last section of this chapter we applied the theory of consumer choice to four practical issues about the economy. If you take more advanced courses in economics, you will see that this theory provides the framework for much additional analysis.
A consumer’s budget constraint combinations of different goods income and the prices of the goods budget constraint equals the
The consumer’s indifference preferences. An indifference curve bundles of goods that make the happy. Points on higher indifference preferred to points on lower
slope of an indifference curve at consumer’s marginal rate of which the consumer is willing to other.
The consumer optimizes by budget constraint that lies on the curve. At this point, the slope of (the marginal rate of substitution equals the slope of the budget price of the goods).
Summar y
good falls, the impact on the
can be broken down into an income effect. The income effect is the that arises because a lower price better off. The substitution effect is
consumption that arises because a price greater consumption of the good
relatively cheaper. The income effect is movement from a lower to a higher
whereas the substitution effect is along an indifference curve to
slope.
choice can be applied in many explain why demand curves can upward, why higher wages could decrease the quantity of labor
interest rates could either increase and why the poor prefer cash to
Key Concepts
budget constraint, p. 465 indifference curve, p. 466
marginal rate of substitution, p. 467 perfect substitutes, p. 470
substitution effect, p. 475 good, p. 479
1.A consumer has income of $3,000. Wine costs $3 a glass, and cheese costs $6 a pound. Draw the consumer’s
budget constraint. What is the slope of this budget constraint?
CHAPTER 21 THE THEORY OF CONSUMER CHOICE |
489 |
2.Draw a consumer’s indifference curves for wine and cheese. Describe and explain four properties of these indifference curves.
3.Pick a point on an indifference curve for wine and cheese and show the marginal rate of substitution. What does the marginal rate of substitution tell us?
4.Show a consumer’s budget constraint and indifference curves for wine and cheese. Show the optimal consumption choice. If the price of wine is $3 a glass and the price of cheese is $6 a pound, what is the marginal rate of substitution at this optimum?
5.A person who consumes wine and his income increases from $3,000 happens if both wine and cheese Now show what happens if cheese
6.The price of cheese rises from $6 to $10 a pound, while the price of wine remains $3 a glass. For a consumer with a constant income of $3,000, show what happens to consumption of wine and cheese. Decompose the change into income and substitution effects.
7.Can an increase in the price of cheese possibly induce a consumer to buy more cheese? Explain.
8.Suppose a person who buys only wine and cheese is given $1,000 in food stamps to supplement his $1,000 income. The food stamps cannot be used to buy wine.
Might the consumer be better off with $2,000 in income? Explain in words and with a diagram.
Problems and Applications
1.Jennifer divides her income between coffee and croissants (both of which are normal goods). An early frost in Brazil causes a large increase in the price of coffee in the United States.
a.Show the effect of the frost on Jennifer’s budget constraint.
b.Show the effect of the frost on Jennifer’s optimal consumption bundle assuming that the substitution effect outweighs the income effect for croissants.
c.Show the effect of the frost on Jennifer’s optimal consumption bundle assuming that the income effect outweighs the substitution effect for croissants.
2.Compare the following two pairs of goods:Coke and Pepsi
Skis and ski bindings
In which case do you expect the indifference curves to be fairly straight, and in which case do you expect the indifference curves to be very bowed? In which case will the consumer respond more to a change in the relative price of the two goods?
3.Mario consumes only cheese and crackers.
a.Could cheese and crackers both be inferior goods for Mario? Explain.
b.Suppose that cheese is a normal good for Mario whereas crackers are an inferior good. If the price of cheese falls, what happens to Mario’s consumption of crackers? What happens to his consumption of cheese? Explain.
4.Jim buys only milk and cookies.
a.In 2001, Jim earns $100, milk costs $2 per quart, and cookies cost $4 per dozen. Draw Jim’s budget constraint.
b.Now suppose that all prices increase by 10 percent in 2002 and that Jim’s salary increases by 10 percent as well. Draw Jim’s new budget constraint. How would Jim’s optimal combination of milk and cookies in 2002 compare to his optimal combination in 2001?
5.Consider your decision about how many hours to work.
a.Draw your budget constraint assuming that you pay no taxes on your income. On the same diagram, draw another budget constraint assuming that you pay a 15 percent tax.
b.Show how the tax might lead to more hours of work, fewer hours, or the same number of hours. Explain.
6.Sarah is awake for 100 hours per week. Using one diagram, show Sarah’s budget constraints if she earns $6 per hour, $8 per hour, and $10 per hour. Now draw indifference curves such that Sarah’s labor supply curve is upward sloping when the wage is between $6 and $8 per hour, and backward sloping when the wage is between $8 and $10 per hour.
7.Draw the indifference curve for someone deciding how much to work. Suppose the wage increases. Is it possible that the person’s consumption would fall? Is this
494 |
PART EIGHT THE DATA OF MACROECONOMICS |
microeconomics
the study of how households and firms make decisions and how they interact in markets
macroeconomics the study of economy-wide
phenomena, including inflation, unemployment, and economic growth
sales), or the imbalance of trade between the United States and the rest of the world (the trade deficit). All these statistics are macroeconomic. Rather than telling us about a particular household or firm, they tell us something about the entire economy.
As you may recall from Chapter 2, economics is divided into two branches: microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics is the study of how individual households and firms make decisions and how they interact with one another in markets. Macroeconomics is the study of the economy as a whole. The goal of macroeconomics is to explain the economic changes that affect many households, firms, and markets at once. Macroeconomists address diverse questions: Why is average income high in some countries while it is low in others? Why do prices rise rapidly in some periods of time while they are more stable in other periods? Why do production and employment expand in some years and contract in others? What, if anything, can the government do to promote rapid growth in incomes, low inflation, and stable employment? These questions are all macroeconomic in nature because they concern the workings of the entire economy.
Because the economy as a whole is just a collection of many households and many firms interacting in many markets, microeconomics and macroeconomics are closely linked. The basic tools of supply and demand, for instance, are as central to macroeconomic analysis as they are to microeconomic analysis. Yet studying the economy in its entirety raises some new and intriguing challenges.
In this chapter and the next one, we discuss some of the data that economists and policymakers use to monitor the performance of the overall economy. These data reflect the economic changes that macroeconomists try to explain. This chapter considers gross domestic product, or simply GDP, which measures the total income of a nation. GDP is the most closely watched economic statistic because it is thought to be the best single measure of a society’s economic well-being.
THE ECONOMY’S INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
If you were to judge how a person is doing economically, you might first look at his or her income. A person with a high income can more easily afford life’s necessities and luxuries. It is no surprise that people with higher incomes enjoy higher standards of living—better housing, better health care, fancier cars, more opulent vacations, and so on.
The same logic applies to a nation’s overall economy. When judging whether the economy is doing well or poorly, it is natural to look at the total income that everyone in the economy is earning. That is the task of gross domestic product (GDP).
GDP measures two things at once: the total income of everyone in the economy and the total expenditure on the economy’s output of goods and services. The reason that GDP can perform the trick of measuring both total income and total expenditure is that these two things are really the same. For an economy as a whole, income must equal expenditure.
Why is this true? The reason that an economy’s income is the same as its expenditure is simply that every transaction has two parties: a buyer and a seller. Every dollar of spending by some buyer is a dollar of income for some seller. Suppose, for instance, that Karen pays Doug $100 to mow her lawn. In this case, Doug is a seller of a service, and Karen is a buyer. Doug earns $100, and Karen spends $100. Thus,
Revenue
(= GDP)
Goods
and services sold
FIRMS
Inputs for production
Wages, rent, and profit (= GDP)
CHAPTER 22 MEASURING A NATION’S INCOME |
495 |
MARKETS FOR
GOODS AND
SERVICES
Spending
(= GDP)
Goods and services bought
HOUSEHOLDS
Figur e 22-1
THE CIRCULAR-FLOW DIAGRAM.
Households buy goods and services from firms, and firms use their revenue from sales to pay wages to workers, rent to landowners, and profit to firm owners. GDP equals the total amount spent by households in the market for goods and services. It also equals the total wages, rent, and profit paid by firms in the markets for the factors of production.
MARKETS FOR FACTORS OF PRODUCTION
Labor, land, and capital
Income (= GDP)
Flow of goods and services
Flow of dollars
the transaction contributes equally to the economy’s income and to its expenditure. GDP, whether measured as total income or total expenditure, rises by $100.
Another way to see the equality of income and expenditure is with the circularflow diagram in Figure 22-1. (You may recall this circular-flow diagram from Chapter 2.) This diagram describes all the transactions between households and firms in a simple economy. In this economy, households buy goods and services from firms; these expenditures flow through the markets for goods and services. The firms in turn use the money they receive from sales to pay workers’ wages, landowners’ rent, and firm owners’ profit; this income flows through the markets for the factors of production. In this economy, money continuously flows from households to firms and then back to households.
We can compute GDP for this economy in one of two ways: by adding up the total expenditure by households or by adding up the total income (wages, rent, and profit) paid by firms. Because all expenditure in the economy ends up as someone’s income, GDP is the same regardless of how we compute it.
The actual economy is, of course, more complicated than the one illustrated in Figure 22-1. In particular, households do not spend all of their income. Households pay some of their income to the government in taxes, and they save and invest some of their income for use in the future. In addition, households do not buy all