ECN741: Urban Economics More General Treatment of Housing Demand.

ECN741: Urban EconomicsMore General Treatment of Housing Demand

Housing Demand Theory

Class Outline

Alternative Utility Functions

An Exponential Density Function?

The Envelope Theorem

Maximizing a Bid Function

Introduction to Comparative Statics with General Functional Forms


Stone-Geary Utility Function

One simple extension to the Cobb-Douglas utility function is to a Stone-Geary utility function:

where SZ and SH are “survival quantities.”

In this case, the demand functions reflect the “required” spending on Z and H:

1

Z HU Z S H S

{ }

{ }z H

H

Y tu S P u SH S

P u

(1 ) { }Z z HZ S Y tu S P u S


Stone-Geary Utility Function, 2

Thus, the indirect utility function is:

What a disappointment! This expression cannot be solved for P{u}!

So this utility function does not help.

{ }*

{ }z HY tu S P u S

U kP u


CES Utility Function

Another well-known utility function is the “constant elasticity of substitution” or CES function, which is

Because demand functions are unaffected by a monotonic transformation of utility, so if δ is positive (which it may not be), one can save a lot of algebraic mess by simplifying this to

1/(1 )U Z H

(1 )U Z H


CES Utility Function, 2

The demand functions for this utility function can be derived and so can the indirect utility function.

This indirect utility function can be solved for P{u}.

I leave this derivation as an exercise.

A CES utility function would be a good choice for a simulation model or urban spatial structure, since it includes the Cobb-Douglas utility function as a special case.


An Exponential Density Function?

Some scholars (Mills, Muth) have argued that an exponential density function can be derived from an urban model.

This was a pretty amazing claim because the exponential density function had been used in many empirical studies—and it worked very well!

Let’s see what assumptions are needed for this to be true.


An Exponential Density Function, 2?

Start with the standard locational equilibrium condition, and assume that the demand for housing takes a constant elasticity form.

A constant elasticity form, by the way, can be derived from an “incomplete demand system,” which has a composite commodity essentially as a residual.

See LaFrance, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, August 1986.



So we have

Putting these together leads to the differential equation

{ }t

P uH

( ) { }H B Y tu P u

{ } { }( )

tP u P u

B Y tu



The general solution to this differential equation is:

where Q is a constant of integration.

This obviously yields a pretty messy nonlinear form for P{u}, and hence for R{u} and D{u}.

It does not lead to an exponential form!

1 1{ } ( )

1 (1 )

P u Y tuQ

B



We can simplify this result by assuming that the price elasticity of demand for H, μ, is -1. This leads to

The solution to this differential equation is

This won’t lead to an exponential density, either!

{ }

{ } ( )

P u t

P u B Y tu

1( )ln{ { }}

(1 )

Y tuP u Q

A



Now let’s change the demand function to:

This changes the differential equation to

and the solution to

{ }H BY P u

{ }

{ }

P u t

P u BY

( / )

ln{ { }}

{ } Q t BY u

tP u Q u

BY

or

P u e e



Now remember from a basic urban model that

In addition, the net income expression in the denominator of D{u} comes from the housing demand equation. With the same simplification (=no tu),

An exponential form at last!

1/ { }{ } { } and { }

( )a R u

R u CP u D ua Y tu

0 1

1/ / ( / ){ }{ }

a Q a t aAY uc c uCP u e e

D u e ea Y a Y



In short, to obtain an exponential density function, one has to assume that the demand for housing depends on Y, not on (Y - tu), and that the demand elasticity is -1.

But if tu is not in the budget constraint, bid functions do not arise in the first place!

Consistency with bid functions requires the assumption that θ = 0 (Kim and McDonald, Journal of Regional Science, 1987). The empirical evidence does not support this assumption.



The Envelope Theorem is an important tool in economics and several scholars have employed it to good effect in the case of urban models.

We will go over what the Envelope Theorem is, including a proof, and then show how it can be used to simplify urban model comparative statics.

This is not the last class in which the Envelope Theorem will appear!


The Envelope Theorem, 2

Many of you may be familiar with the Envelope Theorem, but in case you are not, I’m going to prove it for you.

The proof also serves as an explanation.

Then I am going to restate the bidding problem in an urban model and show you how you can do some comparative statics derivations by applying the Envelope Theorem to this re-formulation.



Let’s start with a standard maximization problem, which can be written as

The Lagrangian expression for this problem is

1

1

Maximize { ,..., , }

Subject to { ,..., , } 0n

n

y f x x

g x x

£ f g



Differentiating this Lagrangian leads to the following first-order conditions

which lead, in turn, to the following solutions:

£ 0i i if g

£ 0g

* *{ }i ix x * *{ }



By substituting the solutions back into the expression for y, which is what we are trying to maximize, we find can write the solution to the problem as

Note that ϕ{α} is sometimes called the indirect objective function; it is the maximum value of y for given α using x’s that meet the constraint.

* * *1{ ,..., , } { }ny f x x



Now suppose we want to know how this maximum value changes when we change α, which is just an exercise in comparative statics.

Differentiating the above expression for y* yields

This looks pretty complicated. It looks like we have to re-solve the problem with the new values of α to find the new values of the xi*s and λ* and then substitute those values back into y.

The Envelope Theorem gives us a shortcut!

**i

ii

xyf f



To get to this shortcut, first write the constraint at the optimal values of the xis.

This constraint must still hold when α changes, which implies that

* *{ ,..., , } 0i ng x x

*

0ii

i

xgg g



Now if we multiply this result by λ and add it to the messy comparative statics result derived earlier, we find that

But, by the first-order conditions, the terms in parentheses in the second line have to equal zero, so

* **

*

i ii i

i i

ii i

i

x xyf f g g

xf g f g

*

£y

f g



This is an amazing shortcut.

To find the comparative static derivative of y* with respect to α, all we have to do is differentiate y and g with respect to α.

We do not have to worry about changes in the xi*s!!

Of course this only applies to small changes, but, as we will see, it is a very helpful result.


Maximizing Bids

In an urban model, the household budget constraint is

One way to think about the household problem is to say that they have to figure out the most they are willing to bid for housing at each location, given their budget constraint and a fixed utility level. In other words, they

{ }Y Z P u H tu

*

Maximize { }

Subject to { , }

Y Z tuP u

H

U Z H U


Maximizing Bids

The decision variables in this problem are Z and H, and the parameters are Y, t, U*, and u.

We are treating this as an open model.

So we can use the envelope theorem to find the derivative of P{u} with respect to each of these parameters.


Maximizing Bids

Although Z and H are formally choice variables, this formulation cannot be used to find their demand functions; this problem is to determine P{u}, not to determine responses to P{u}.

Nevertheless, one first-order condition is needed to pin down the CS derivatives.


Maximizing Bids

The Lagrangian is

The relevant first-order condition is:

and the result we need is:

1£0ZU

Z H

1

ZU H

*£ { , }Y Z tu

U Z H UH


Maximizing Bids

Now we can use the Envelope Theorem to find the impact of Y, t, U*, and u on P{u} using

The CS results are:

*

£y

f g

{ } 10

P u

Y H

{ }

0P u u

t H

*

{ } 10

Z

P u

U U H


Maximizing Bids

In this setting, it is appropriate to treat u as a parameter, and we can ask how bids changes when a household moves to a more distant location:

The envelope theorem reveals that:

which is, of course, the result we have derived before.

{ }{ } 0

P u tP u

u H


General Comparative Statics

One final point to make about this exercise is that these CS results apply to any utility function.

Hence they are part of a general CS analysis, such as the one in Brueckner’s Handbook chapter.

In fact, the CS results with general functional forms are the same (i.e. have the same signs) as the results in the table presented in the last class.

ECN741: Urban Economics More General Treatment of Housing Demand.

Documents

Transcript of ECN741: Urban Economics More General Treatment of Housing Demand.