Hicksian complementarity and perturbed utility models

  • Roy Allen
  • John RehbeckEmail author
Research Article


This paper studies aggregate complementarity without price or income variation. We show that for a class of utility functions, variation in non-price observables allows one to recover a measure of complementarity similar to Hicksian complementarity. In addition, the entire Slutsky matrix can be recovered up to scale without price variation. We then examine aggregate complementarity in latent utility models used in discrete choice, bundles, and matching. We show that classical linear instrumental variables can recover Hicksian complementarity for the special case of quadratic utility.


Hicksian complementarity Demand Instrumental variables 

JEL Classification

D01 D11 C10 



  1. Allen, R., Rehbeck, J.: Latent complementarity in bundles models. Available at SSRN 3257028, (2019a)Google Scholar
  2. Allen, R., Rehbeck, J.: Identification with additively separable heterogeneity. Econometrica 87(3), 1021–1054 (2019b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, R., Rehbeck, J.: Revealed stochastic choice with attributes. Available at SSRN 2818041 (2019c)Google Scholar
  4. Amir, Rabah, Erickson, Philip, Jin, Jim: On the microeconomic foundations of linear demand for differentiated products. J. Econ. Theory 169, 641–665 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arora, A.: Testing for complementarities in reduced-form regressions: a note. Econ. Lett. 50(1), 51–55 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Athey, S., Stern, S.: An empirical framework for testing theories about complimentarity in organizational design. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research (1998)Google Scholar
  7. Blackburn, D.: Online piracy and recorded music sales. Working paper, (2004)Google Scholar
  8. Chambers, C.P., Echenique, F.: Supermodularity and preferences. J. Econ. Theory 144(3), 1004–1014 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiappori, P.-A., Salanié, B.: The econometrics of matching models. J. Econ. Lit. 54(3), 832–61 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choo, E., Siow, A.: Who marries whom and why. J. Polit. Econ. 114(1), 175–201 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrell, J., Shapiro, C.: Antitrust evaluation of horizontal mergers: an economic alternative to market definition. BE J. Theoret. Econ. 10(1), 1–41 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. Feng, G., Li, X., Wang, Z.: On substitutability and complementarity in discrete choice models. Oper. Res. Lett. 46(1), 141–146 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fosgerau, M., de Palma, A. Monardo, J.: Demand models for differentiated products with complementarity and substitutability. Available at SSRN 3141041, (2018)Google Scholar
  14. Fox, J.T., Yang, C.H., David, H.: Unobserved heterogeneity in matching games. J. Polit. Econ. 126(4), 1339–1373 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fudenberg, D., Iijima, R., Strzalecki, T.: Stochastic choice and revealed perturbed utility. Econometrica 83(6), 2371–2409 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galichon, A., Salanié, B.: Cupid’s invisible hand: Social surplus and identification in matching models. Available at SSRN 1804623, (2015)Google Scholar
  17. Gentzkow, M.: Valuing new goods in a model with complementarity: online newspapers. Am. Econ. Rev. 97(3), 713–744 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson, M., Shrader, J.: Time use and labor productivity: the returns to sleep. Rev. Econ. Stat. 100(5), 783–798 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heckman, J.J., Vytlacil, E.: Structural equations, treatment effects, and econometric policy evaluation 1. Econometrica 73(3), 669–738 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hicks, J.R., Allen, R.G.D.: A reconsideration of the theory of value. Economica 1(1934), 52–176 (1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hofbauer, J., Sandholm, W.H.: On the global convergence of stochastic fictitious play. Econometrica 70(6), 2265–2294 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howard, D.H.: Rationing, quantity constraints, and consumption theory. Econometrica 45(2), 399–412 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lancaster, K.J.: A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74(2), 132–157 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manzini, P., Mariotti, M., Ülkü, L.: Stochastic complementarity. Econ. J. 129(619), 1343–1363 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McFadden, D.L., Fosgerau, M.: A theory of the perturbed consumer with general budgets. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, (2012)Google Scholar
  26. McFadden, D.: Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In: Manski, C.F., McFadden, D. (eds.) Structural Analysis of Discrete data with Econometric Applications. MIT Press, Cambridge (1981)Google Scholar
  27. Milgrom, P., Shannon, C., et al.: Monotone comparative statics. Econometrica 62(1), 157–180 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Novak, S., Stern, S.: Complementarity among vertical integration decisions: evidence from automobile product development. Manag. Sci. 55(2), 311–332 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oberholzer-Gee, F., Strumpf, K.: The effect of file sharing on record sales: an empirical analysis. J. Polit. Econ. 115(1), 1–42 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rieskamp, J., Busemeyer, J.R., Mellers, B.A.: Extending the bounds of rationality: evidence and theories of preferential choice. J. Econ. Lit. 44, 631–661 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rob, R., Waldfogel, J.: Piracy on the high c’s: music downloading, sales displacement, and social welfare in a sample of college students. J. Law Econ. 49(1), 29–62 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samuelson, P.A.: Complementarity: an essay on the 40th anniversary of the Hicks-Allen revolution in demand theory. J. Econ. Lit. 12, 1255–1289 (1974)Google Scholar
  33. Schennach, S., White, H., Chalak, K.: Local indirect least squares and average marginal effects in nonseparable structural systems. J. Econ. 166(2), 282–302 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Topkis, D.M.: Minimizing a submodular function on a lattice. Oper. Res. 26(2), 305–321 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Varian, H.R.: Microeconomic Analysis. WW Norton, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  36. Vives, X.: Nash equilibrium with strategic complementarities. J. Math. Econ. 19(3), 305–321 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zentner, A.: Measuring the effect of file sharing on music purchases. J. Law Econ. 49(1), 63–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations