At higher prices, the quantity demanded is less
than at lower prices.
A demand schedule indicates that, typically,
there is an inverse relationship between the price of a product and the quantity
demanded. This relationship is easiest to see when a graph
is plotted, as shown.
Demand curves generally have a negative gradient indicating the inverse relationship between quantity demanded and price.
There are at least three accepted explanations of why demand curves slope downwards:
One of the earliest explanations of the inverse relationship between price and quantity demanded is the law of diminishing marginal utility. This law suggests that as more of a product is consumed the marginal (additional) benefit to the consumer falls, hence consumers are prepared to pay less. This can be explained as follows:
Most benefit is generated by the first unit of a good consumed because it satisfies all or a large part of the immediate need or desire.
A second unit consumed would generate less utility - perhaps even zero, given that the consumer now has less need or less desire.
With less benefit derived, the rational consumer is prepared to pay rather less for the second, and subsequent, units, because the marginal utility falls.
Consider the following figures for utility derived by an individual when consuming bars of chocolate. While total utility continues to rise from extra consumption, the additional (marginal) utility from each bar falls. If marginal utility is expressed in a monetary form, the greater the quantity consumed the less the marginal utility and the less value derived - hence the rational consumer would be prepared to pay less for that unit.
While total utility continues to rise from extra consumption, the additional (marginal) utility from each bar falls. If marginal utility is expressed in a monetary form, the greater the quantity consumed the lower the marginal utility and the less the rational consumer would be prepared to pay.
|BARS||TOTAL UTILITY||MARGINAL UTILITY|
The income and substitution effect can also be used to explain why the demand curve slopes downwards. If we assume that money income is fixed, the income effect suggests that, as the price of a good falls, real income - that is, what consumers can buy with their money income - rises and consumers increase their demand.
Therefore, at a lower price, consumers can buy more from the same money income, and, ceteris paribus, demand will rise. Conversely, a rise in price will reduce real income and force consumers to cut back on their demand.
In addition, as the price of one good falls, it becomes relatively less expensive. Therefore, assuming other alternative products stay at the same price, at lower prices the good appears cheaper, and consumers will switch from the expensive alternative to the relatively cheaper one.
It is important to remember that whenever the price of any resource changes it will trigger both an income and a substitution effect.
It is possible to identify some exceptions to the normal rules regarding the relationship between price and current demand.
Giffen goods are those which are consumed in greater quantities when their price rises. These goods are named after the Scottish economist Sir Robert Giffen, who is credited with identifying them by Alfred Marshall in his highly influential Principles of Economics (1895).
In essence, a Giffen good is a staple food, such as bread or rice, which forms are large percentage of the diet of the poorest sections of a society, and for which there are no close substitutes. From time to time the poor may supplement their diet with higher quality foods, and they may even consume the odd luxury, although their income will be such that they will not be able to save. A rise in the price of such a staple food will not result in a typical substitution effect, given there are no close substitutes. If the real incomes of the poor increase they would tend to reallocate some of this income to luxuries, and if real incomes decrease they would buy more of the staple good, meaning it is an inferior good. Assuming that the money incomes of the poor are constant in the short run, a rise in price of the staple food will reduce real income and lead to an inverse income effect. However, most inferior goods will have substitutes, hence despite the inverse income effect, a rise in price will trigger a substitution effect, and demand will fall. In the case of a Giffen good, this typical response does not happen as there are no substitutes, and the price rise causes demand to increase.
For example, a family living on the equivalent of just $150 a month, may purchase some bread (say 50 loaves at $2 each, which is the minimum they need to survive), and a luxury item at $50. If the price of bread rises by 25% to $2.50 per loaf, continuing to purchase 50 loaves would cost the individual $125, making the luxury unaffordable. They cannot reduce their consumption of bread, given that their current consumption is the minimum they require, and they cannot find a suitable substitute for their stable food. Not being able to afford the luxury would leave the family with an extra $25 to spend, and, given no alternatives to bread, they would purchase 10 more loaves each month. Hence the 25% price increase has resulted in a 20% increase in the demand for bread - from 50 to 60 loaves.
Veblen goods are a second possible exception to the general law of demand. These goods are named after the American sociologist, Thorsten Veblen, who, in the early 20th century, identified a 'new' high-spending leisure class. According to Veblen, a rise in the price of high status luxury goods might lead members of this leisure class to increase in their consumption, rather than reduce it. The purchase of such higher priced goods would confer status on the purchaser - a process which Veblen called conspicuous consumption.
See: shifts in demand