r>r
p0t
( pit∖
= > "70 —
V W
,∕2^1 1/r '
( Pit∖
∑ w∙ ы
∙r∕2^∣ ~1/r
(16)
if r = O and wit denoting expenditure shares of commodities i = 1,. . . , N
in period t = O,t. This constitutes a family of infinitely many superlative
(price) indices for -∞ < r < +∞. Accordingly if r = O we get
wiθ+wit
p0<=° = ∏ (^t) ’ = p0. (U)
The corresponding superlative quantity indices are gained by simply sub-
stituting qit∕qi0 for pit∕pi0 It is important to note that there are an infinite
number of superlative indices on the basis of the quadratic mean of order
r. This functional form, however, requires homothetic preferences. Using
the non-homothetic cost function (14) Diewert could demonstrate that the
Tbrnqvist index is exact for the utility level u* = ^u0ut. For other levels
U = u* the (no less) superlative price index c(pt, U)∕c(p0,U) will differ from
Pτ. So the SIA involves occasionally some additional assumptions. They
may be without a doubt plausible, however not at all cogent. In this case of
non-homotheticity27 it is an assumption about the absolute level (amount)
of “utility” that had to be introduced. Another situation where such an
assumption is involved is [17]Diewert’s (2009) finding (pp. 21 -23) that
a) P« = | (P⅛⅛ + P<J) (18)
£
or
I1
b) Pf = ɪ ' +1 (Pf Г (19)
£ £
is exact for the normalised quadratic cost function (12) and therefore
again “superlative”. However, this applies only if we set
a) a = qt and
b) a = q0 respectively.
27The result (of Diewert) concerning the index Pτ of Tornqvist is to our knowledge the
only proof of superlativity where the (notoriously unrealistic) assumption of homothetic
preferences is being relaxed.
16