An indifference curve in microeconomic theory is a graph showing different bundles of goods,
each measured as to quantity, between which a consumer is indifferent. That is, at each point on the curve, the consumer
has no preference for one bundle over another. In other words, they are all equally
preferred. One can equivalently refer to each point on the indifference curve as rendering the same level of utility (satisfaction) for the consumer. Utility is then a device to represent preferences rather than something from which preferences come (Geanakoplis, 1987, p. 117). The main use of
indifference curves is in the representation of potentially observable
demand patterns for individual consumers over commodity bundles (Böhm and Haller,
1987, p. 785).
An example of how indifference curves are obtained as the level curves of a utility function
History
The theory of indifference curves was developed by Francis Ysidro Edgeworth,
Vilfredo Pareto and others in the first part of the 20th century. The theory can be
derived from ordinal utility theory, which posits that individuals can always rank any
consumption bundles by order of preference.
Map and properties of indifference curves
Figure 1: An example of an indifference map with three indifference curves represented
A graph of indifference curves for an individual consumer associated with different utility levels is called an
indifference map. Points yielding different utility levels are each associated with distinct indifference curves. An
indifference curve describes a set of personal preferences and so can vary from person to person.
Indifference curves are typically represented to be:
- 1. defined only in the positive (+, +) quadrant of commodity-bundle
quantities.
- 2. negatively sloped. That is, as quantity consumed of one good (X) increases,
total satisfaction would increase if not offset by a decrease in the quantity consumed of the other good (Y). Equivalently,
satiation, such that more of either good (or both) is equally preferred to no increase, is
excluded. (If utility U = f(x, y), U, in the third dimension, does not have a local maximum for any x and y values.)
- 3. complete, such that all points on an indifference curve are ranked equally preferred
and ranked either more or less preferred than every other point not on the curve. So, with (2), no two curves can intersect
(otherwise non-satiation would be violated).
- 4. transitive with respect to points on distinct indifference curves. That is,
if each point on I2 is (strictly) preferred to each point on I1, and each point on
I3 is preferred to each point on I2, each point on I3 is preferred to each
point on I1. A negative slope and transitivity exclude indifference curves crossing, since straight lines from
the origin on both sides of where they crossed would give opposite and intransitive preference rankings.
- 5. (strictly) convex (sagging from below). With (2), convex preferences implies a bulge toward the origin of the indifference curve. As a consumer
decreases consumption of one good in successive units, successively larger doses of the other
good are required to keep satisfaction unchanged, the substitution effect.
Assumptions
Let a, b, and c be bundles (vectors) of goods, such as
(x, y) combinations above, with possibly different quantities of each respective good in the different bundles. The
first assumption is necessary for a well-defined representation of stable preferences for
the consumer as agent; the second assumption is convenient.
Rationality (called an ordering relationship in a more general mathematical
context): Completeness + transitivity. For given preference rankings, the consumer can choose the best bundle(s) consistently
among a, b, and c from lowest on up.
Continuity: This means that you can choose to consume any amount of the good. For example, I could drink 11 mL of soda,
or 12 mL, or 132 mL. I am not confined to drinking 2 liters or nothing. See also continuous
function in mathematics.
Of the remaining properties above, suppose, property (5) (convexity) is violated by a bulge of the indifference curves out
from the origin for a particular consumer with a given budget constraint. Consumer
theory then implies zero consumption for one of the two goods, say good Y, in equilibrium on the consumer's budget
constraint. This would exemplify a corner solution. Further, decreases in the price of
good Y over a certain range might leave quantity demanded unchanged at zero beyond which further price decreases switched all
consumption and income away from X and to Y. The eccentricity of such an implication suggests why convexity is typically
assumed.
Application
Examples of Indifference Curves
Figure 1 encore: An example of an indifference map with three indifference curves represented
Figure 2: Three indifference curves where Goods X and Y are perfect substitutes. The gray line perpendicular to all curves
indicates the curves are mutually parallel.
Figure 3: Indifference curves for perfect complements X and Y. The "elbows" of the curves are
collinear.
In Figure 1, the consumer would rather be on I3 than I2, and would rather be on
I2 than I1, but does not care where he/she is on a given indifference curve. The slope of an
indifference curve (in absolute value), known by economists as the marginal rate
of substitution, shows the rate at which consumers are willing to give up one good in exchange for more of the other good.
For most goods the marginal rate of substitution is not constant so their indifference curves are curved. The curves are
convex to the origin, describing the negative substitution effect. As price rises for a
fixed money income, the consumer seeks less the expensive substitute at a lower indifference curve. The substitution effect is
reinforced through the income effect of lower real income (Beattie-LaFrance). An example
of a utility function that generates indifference curves of this kind is the Cobb-Douglas function
.
If the goods are perfect substitutes then the indifference curves will be parallel
lines since the consumer would be willing to trade at a fixed ratio. The marginal rate of substitution is constant. An example of
a utility function that is associated with indifference curves like these would be
.
If the goods are perfect complements then the indifference curves will be
L-shaped. An example would be something like if you had a cookie recipe that called for 3 cups flour to 1 cup sugar. No matter
how much extra flour you had, you still could not make more cookie dough without more sugar. Another example of perfect
complements is a left shoe and a right shoe. The consumer is no better off having several right shoes if she has only one left
shoe. Additional right shoes have zero marginal utility without more left shoes. The marginal rate of substitution is either zero
or infinite. An example of the type of utility function that has an indifference map like that above is
.
The different shapes of the curves imply different responses to a change in price as shown from demand analysis in
consumer theory. The results will only be stated here. A price-budget-line change that
kept a consumer in equilbrium on the same indifference curve:
- in Fig. 1 would reduce quantity demanded of a good smoothly as price rose relatively for that good.
- in Fig. 2 would have either no effect on quantity demanded of either good (at one end of the budget constraint) or would
change quantity demanded from one end of the budget constraint to the other.
- in Fig. 3 would have no effect on equilibrium quantities demanded, since the budget line would rotate around the corner of
the indifference curve.
Preference relations and utility
Choice theory formally represents consumers by a preference relation, and use this representation to derive
indifference curves.
The idea of an indifference curve is a straightforward one: If a consumer was equally satisfied with 1 apple and 4 bananas, 2
apples and 2 bananas, or 5 apples and 1 banana, these combinations would all lie on the same indifference curve.
Preference relations
Let
= a set of mutually
exclusive alternatives among which a consumer can choose
and
= generic elements of
.
In the language of the example above, the set
is made of combinations of apples and bananas. The
symbol
is one such
combination, such as 1 apple and 4 bananas and
is another combination such as 2 apples and 2
bananas.
A preference relation, denoted Failed to parse (unknown function\succeq): \succeq , is a
binary relation define on the set
.
The statement
- Failed to parse (unknown function\succeq): a\succeq b\;
is described as '
is weakly
preferred to
.' That is,
is at least as good as
(in preference
satisfaction).
The statement

is described as '
is weakly
preferred to
, and
is weakly preferred to
.' That is, one is indifferent to the
choice of
or
, meaning not that they are unwanted but that
they are equally good in satisfying preferences.
The statement
- Failed to parse (unknown function\succ): a\succ b\;
is described as '
is weakly
preferred to
, but
is not weakly preferred to
.' One says that '
is strictly preferred to
.'
The preference relation Failed to parse (unknown function\succeq): \succeq
is complete if all pairs
can be ranked. The relation is a transitive relation if whenever Failed to parse (unknown function\succeq): a\succeq b\;
and Failed to parse (unknown function\succeq): b\succeq c,\;
then Failed to parse (unknown function\succeq): a\succeq c\;
.
Consider a particular element of the set
, such as
.
Suppose one builds the list of all other elements of
which are indifferent, in the eyes of the consumer,
to
. Denote the first element
in this list by
, the second
by
and so on... The set
forms an
indifference curve since
for all
.
Formal link to utility theory
In the example above, an element
of the set
is made of
two numbers: The number of apples, call it
and the number of bananas, call it 
In utility theory, the utility function of an agent is a function that ranks all pairs of consumption bundles by order of preference
(completeness) such that any set of three or more bundles forms a transitive
relation. This means that for each bundle
there is a unique relation,
, representing
the utility (satisfaction) relation associated with
. The relation
is called the
utility function. The range of the function is a
set of real numbers. The actual values of the function have no importance. Only the ranking
of those values has content for the theory. More precisely, if
, then the bundle
is described as at least as good
as the bundle
.
If
, the bundle
is described as strictly preferred to
the bundle
.
Consider a particular bundle
and take the total derivative of
about this point:
or, without loss of generality,
(Eq. 1)
where
is
the partial derivative of
with respect to its first argument, evaluated at
. (Likewise for
)
The indifference curve through
must deliver at each bundle on the curve the same utility level as bundle
. In other words, if one is to
change the quantity of
by
, one must also change the
quantity of
by an amount
such that, in the end, there
is no change in U:
, or, substituting 0 into (Eq. 1) above to solve for dy/dx:
.
Thus, the ratio of marginal utilities gives the absolute value of the slope of the indifference
curve at point
. This ratio is called the marginal rate of
substitution between
and
.
Examples
Linear utility
If the utility function is of the form
then the marginal utility of
is
and the marginal utility of
is
. The slope of the
indifference curve is, therefore,

Observe that the slope does not depend on
or
: Indifference curves are straight lines.
If the utility function is of the form
the marginal utility of
is
and the marginal utility of
is
. The marginal rate
of substitution, and therefore the slope of the indifference curve is then

CES utility
A general CES (Constant Elasticity of Substitution) form is

where
and
. (The Cobb-Douglas is a special case of the CES utility, with
.) The marginal utilities are given by

and

Therefore, along an indifference curve,

These examples might be useful for modelling individual or aggregate demand.
References
- Bruce R. Beattie and Jeffrey T. LaFrance, “The Law of Demand versus Diminishing Marginal Utility” (2006). Review of
Agricultural Economics. 28 (2), pp. 263-271.
- Volker Böhm and Hans Haller (1987). "demand theory," The New
Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 1, pp. 785-92.
- John Geanakoplis (1987). "Arrow-Debreu model of general equilibrium," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v.
1, pp. 116-24.
See also
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)