EconGraphs Logo BETA
Note: This work is under development and has not yet been professionally edited.
If you catch a typo or error, or just have a suggestion, please submit a note here. Thanks!
Chapter 4 / Preferences and Utility Functions

4.5 Monotonicity


A preference ordering over bundles of goods exhibits monotonicity if more of each good is always better: that is, if bundle $A$ contains more of all goods than bundle $B$ (e.g. $A$ lies above and/or to the right of $B$ in good 1 - good 2 space), then you must like $A$ at least as much as $B$: that is, $A \succeq B$.

For example, think about your preferences over pizza (good 1) and soda (good 2). If you think about your lifetime consumption of pizza, it might make sense to model this as if you’d always like more pizza and more soda, meaning your preferences are monotonic. These preferences might be represented by a utility function like the one below, because no matter which bundle $X$ you start from, increasing either pizza or soda will move you into the green “preferred region:”

Now think about your consumption in a single meal. The first few slices of pizza and soda might taste great, but after a certain number of slices and cans of soda you might actually start to feel sick. Since consuming more beyond that point would actually make you feel worse, your preferences would be nonmonotonic:

You might notice that this utility function has a global maximum at (4 slices of pizza, 2 sodas), indicating that this combination of pizza and soda that gives you the most utility. Consuming any more or less of either good would decrease your utility. We call this the “satiation point” or “bliss point.”

In truth, most goods probably look like this if you look out far enough: that is, even over a lifetime, there’s some amount of pizza and soda you could have that would be just too much. For this reason, we sometimes call the region below and to the left of the satiation point the “economic region;” so one way of constraining preferences to be monotonic is to assume that we’re considering small enough quantities of each good that satiation isn’t an issue.

Strict vs. Weak Monotonicity

We say that preferences are strictly monotonic if any increase in any good strictly increases utility; that is, $MU > 0$ for all goods at all bundles, not just $MU \ge 0$. If preferences are strictly monotonic, it means their marginal utilities are never zero. This also implies that the indifference curves cannot be “thick:” even the slightest increase in a good will increase your utility, and therefore move you to a higher indifference curve.

By contrast, if a utility function is weakly monotonic, its marginal utilities might be zero or positive. For example, the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has a dose of 0.3 mL, and the Moderna vaccine has a dose of 0.5mL. Suppose that a clinic’s “utility function” is just the total number of usable doses it can obtain from various quantities of vaccines. It would make sense, then, that a vials of Pfizer vaccine containing 1 mL and 1.1 mL would yield the same utility, since each contains enough for just three doses, with a bit left in the vial. Mathematically, the total number of usable doses given $x_1$ mL of Pfizer vaccine and $x_2$ mL of Moderna vaccine would be \(\text{Usable doses} = \text{trunc}(x_1/0.3) + \text{trunc}(x_2/0.5)\) where the function “trunc($x$)” means “$x$, rounded down to the nearest integer.” This utility function would have flat portions for any $x_1$ that is not divisible by 0.3, and any $x_2$ that is not divisible by 0.5, and “jump” by one util at any point where it gets enough to provide an additional dose. Its indifference curves would be correspondingly “thick,” because they would be indifferent between any quantities of vaccine that would give them the same number of usable doses:

Goods vs. bads

The assumption of monotonicity says that “more is always better,” meaning that all commodities are “good,” and that $MU > 0$. However, some things – like risky investments, or terrorist attacks, or long wait times in airports, or pollution – are always “bad.” If $MU < 0$ everywhere for a commodity, then we say that commodity is a “bad.”

When we’re dealing with two goods, an the indifference curves will always slope downward if we’re analyzing a tradeoff between two goods or two bads: in the case of two goods, utility is increasing as we move up and to the right (increase our consumption of the goods), and in the case of two bads, utility is increasing as we move down and to the left (decrease our consumption of the goods). On the other hand, if we’re dealing with one good and one bad, the indifference curves will be upward sloping: for example, if good 1 is “good” and good 2 is “bad,” then our utility will increase as we move up and to the left in good 1 - good 2 space.

Note that a “bad” may be converted into a “good” by re-casting it as its lack. For example, you could plot the TSA’s problem as balancing “passengers screened per hour” vs. “days with no terrorist attack.” These measure the same tradeoff, but cast the tradeoff as being between two good things rather than two bad things.

Previous: Transforming Utility Functions
Next: Convexity
Copyright (c) Christopher Makler / econgraphs.org