Fact 1 The value function (8) increases (decreases) in α, if U1 > U2 (U1 < U2).
However, this result alone does not allow the further conclusion that the utility of at
least one household member increases (decreases). A look at a more elementary proof
of the fact proves instructive. Namely, let without loss of generality U1 > U2 > 0 and
consider α and e with 0 < α < α + e < 1. Then for sufficiently small e, xh(α) ∈
Bh (p ( α + e)) and
[Uι(xh(α + e))]α+) ∙ [U2(xh(α + e))]1 -(α+))
≥ [Uι(xh(α))]α+) ∙ [U2(xh(α))]1 -(α+))
= [Uι(xh(α))]α ∙ [U2(xh(α))]1 -α ∙ (U1 /U2))
> [U1(xh(α))]α ∙ [U2(xh(α))]1-α.
The last inequality shows that the shift in bargaining power has a “nominal effect”
on the household’s Nash product even before reoptimization takes place. For this
reason, we cannot conclude from a surge of the household’s maximum value of F per
se that the utility of at least one household member has increased. The impact of a
shift of bargaining power has to be assessed for each household member individually.
When we take a closer look at individual welfare, we encounter the same dichotomy
as in the case ` = 1:
One possibility is (U1(xh(α)),U2(xh(α))) = (U1(xh(α + e)),U2(xh(α + e))). For
instance, assume (E2), the absence of externalities. Then a non-binding budget con-
straint for the household requires that both household members be individually locally
satiated at their equilibrium consumption. Then for sufficiently small e, xh(α + e) ∈
Bh(p(α)), xh(α) ∈ Bh(p(α + e)), and xh(α) and xh(α + e) are close enough so that
Ui(Xi(α) ≥ Ui(Xi(α + e)) and Ui(Xi(α + e)) ≥ Ui(Xi(α)), hence Ui(xh(α)) = Ui(Xi(α)) =
Ui(Xi(α + e)) = Ui(xh(α + e)) for i = 1,2.
The second possibility is (U1(xh(α)), U2(xh(α)) = (U1(xh(α + e)), U2(xh(α + e))).
Again an increase of α makes the household’s α-indifference curves steeper. Hence, as
long as xh(α + e) ∈ Bh(p(α)) and xh(α) ∈ Bh(p(α + e)), the revised utility allocation
(U1(xh(α + e)), U2(xh(α + e))) must lie to the southeast of (U1(xh(α)), U2(xh(α)). Thus
consumer 1 benefits from a small increase of her bargaining power to the detriment of
consumer 2.
The foregoing local comparative statics can be easily globalized.
11
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. The name is absent
3. The Role of Land Retirement Programs for Management of Water Resources
4. Iconic memory or icon?
5. Regional Intergration and Migration: An Economic Geography Model with Hetergenous Labour Force
6. Testing for One-Factor Models versus Stochastic Volatility Models
7. Ability grouping in the secondary school: attitudes of teachers of practically based subjects
8. Name Strategy: Its Existence and Implications
9. The storage and use of newborn babies’ blood spot cards: a public consultation
10. Fortschritte bei der Exportorientierung von Dienstleistungsunternehmen