The basics of “Dixit-Stiglitz lite”∗
Jonathan I. Dingel†
9 June 2009This document derives some of the most basic “Dixit-Stiglitz lite” equations stepby-step.1 It is aimed at students encountering this demand system for the very firsttime, in hopes that it will ease their journey into homework assignments and journal
articles that feature a “near-impenetrable soup of CES algebra” (Neary, 2001). Thoseseeking a less rudimentary introduction should consult the appendix of Baldwin,
Forslid, Martin, Ottaviano, and Robert-Nicoud (2005).

1Consumers

1.1Preferences

The representative consumer’s utility function is ρ1
Z nρq(ω) dω
U=0<ρ<1(1)0where q(ω) is consumption of variety ω, n is the mass of varieties available toconsumers, and ρ is a measure of substitutability. The consumer has “taste forvariety” in that he or she prefers to consume a diversified bundle of goods. Moredetails on this below.
∗None of this material is original. I thank Peter Neary and Tony Venables for their lectureson this demand system and Enda Hargaden, Greg Thompson, and Assaf Zimring for feedback on
previous versions of this document. Any errors are mine.
†www.tradediversion.net and www.columbia.edu/~jid2106 Please email comments and corrections to jonathan.dingel@gmail.com
1The popular “lite” specification imposes all three restrictions considered in Dixit and Stiglitz(1977). See Neary (2004), who coined the phrase. Note that this document omits the separable
numeraire good x0 and Cobb-Douglas upper tier (u = x1−µU µ ) for clarity of exposition. Many0macro and trade models use preferences of the form of equation (1).

1

1.2

DemandsThe consumer’s
problem may be solved by the Lagrangian
R n constrained maximization
ρ2
L = U − λ( 0 p(ω)q(ω)dω - I). Take first derivatives.3∂L= ρq(ω)ρ−1 − λp(ω) = 0
∂q(ω)

(2)

Rearranging terms yields the Frisch demand function:q(ω) =1
 λp(ω)  ρ−1ρ(3)Taking the ratio of Frisch demands for two varieties ω1 and ω2 yields relative
demand:1q(ω1 )  p(ω1 )  ρ−1=q(ω2 )p(ω2 )(4)

Relative demand will give us Marshallian demand functions, after a bit of manip1ulation. At this stage, it will be useful to introduce σ ≡ 1−ρ
in order to keep notation
concise. From (4), it is evident that the elasticity of substitution is the constantln q(ω1 )/q(ω2 )σ = −d, hence this is a CES demand function. Using σ and multiplying
d ln p(ω1 )/p(ω2 )both sides by q(ω2 ) yields: p(ω ) −σ1q(ω1 ) = q(ω2 )p(ω2 )
Now multiply both sides by p(ω1 ) and take the integral with respect to ω1 .
Z nZ np(ω1 )q(ω1 )dω1 =q(ω2 )p(ω1 )1−σ p(ω2 )σ dω100

The left-hand side is the consumer’s total expenditure on all varieties – the consumer’s income.
Z nσ
I = q(ω2 )p(ω2 )p(ω1 )1−σ dω102It’s easier to take derivatives of U ρ , which is a strictly increasing transformation of the utility
function and therefore yields the same optimization solutions.
3The consumer chooses q(ω) for each variety ω, so there is a continuum of first order conditions.
Equation (2) describes each of them.

2To Robtain Marshallian demand for ω2 in terms of prices and income, divide bynp(ω2 )σ 0 p(ω1 )1−σ dω1 :Ip(ω2 )−σp(ω1 )1−σ dω10q(ω2 ) = R n

1.3

A price index

If we define an index of all varieties’ prices to be P ≡Marshallian demand isq(ω) = p(ω)−σ P σ−1 I =Rnp(ω)1−σ dω01
 1−σ, then p(ω) −σ I(5)PP
P is thus the true cost of living index, such that the expenditure function ise(P, u) = P u, as can be seen by plugging our consumption solution from (5) into (1)while recalling that ρ = σ−1.
σU =Z nρq(ω) dω ρ10=

Z n1−σ ρ(σ−1)ρ

 ρ1p(ω) I Pdωσ
 σ−1
Z n1−σσ−1= IPp(ω) dω
0= IPI=P1.4

σ−1

P0−σ

Taste for variety

Consumers prefer to diversify their consumption. Suppose that all varietiesRhave thensame price p and are therefore consumed in equal amounts q, so that I = 0 pq dω.
IThen I = npq and q = np. Therefore, recalling (1):Z n ρ1   I ρ  ρ11−ρ
1
U=q(ω)ρ dω = n= n ρ I/p = n σ−1 I/pnp
01
where the last equality involves using σ = 1−ρand ρ = σ−1. You can see thatσutility is increasing in n and moreso the lower the value of σ.

32Firms

2.1Production

The Dixit-Stiglitz demand system is popular because it provides a tractable meansof introducing monopolistic competition and increasing returns. The simplest meansof introducing increasing returns is to assume that the production of a good involves
a fixed cost in addition to a constant marginal cost, so that the average cost is
decreasing in quantity. Rather than writing the production function, we write thelabor demand function:l(q) = f + cq

(6)where l is labor demanded, f is the fixed cost of production, and c is the constantmarginal cost.
It is assumed that there no economies of scope, so there is no reason for a firm
to produce multiple varieties. Since consumers have an unbounded taste for variety,every firm will produce a distinct variety rather than producing another firm’s typeand losing profits to competition. The result is one variety per firm and one firm
per variety. Thus, the distinction between the number of firms and the number ofvarieties collapses in our discussion of those topics.

2.2Pricing

A firm’s profits are:π = pq − wcq − wf

(7)

A firm sets the price of its variety to maximise profits:∂q∂π= q + (p − wc)
=0
∂p
∂p−q
p = wc + ∂q(8)∂p∂q
Use Marshallian demand (5) to calculate ∂p, noting that the firm’s choice of pdoes not affect the price index P since there is a continuum of firms:

4∂q= −σp−σ−1 P σ−1 I∂p−q−p−σ P σ−1 Ip==
∂q−σ−1σ−1−σpPIσ∂p(9)(10)

Plugging (10) into (8) and recalling ρ = σ−1:
σpp = wc +σ
σ − 1
p= wcσwcp=
ρ(11)The optimal pricing strategy is a proportional mark-up over cost that is independent of other firms’ pricing strategies.

2.3

Free entry equilibrium

From the consumer’s perspective the number of available varieties n is exogeneous,
but we might expect more firms to enter if incumbents are earning positive profits.
The free entry condition is zero profits, so thatπ = pq − wcq − wf
1

− 1 − wf = 0= qwc
ρfq =(σ − 1)c(12)Firms enter the market until they are of sufficient number that no one earns aprofit. Note that the scale of firms under free entry is determined solely by the cost
structure (f and c) and the elasticity of substitution σ.

5

3What’s next?

This document has provided step-by-step algebra to get you through the first one or
two homework questions you might face on this material. There’s a whole world of
Dixit-Stiglitz out there – and a whole book about it (Brakman and Heijdra, 2004)!
Good luck.

References
Baldwin, R., R. Forslid, P. Martin, G. Ottaviano, and F. RobertNicoud (2005): Economic Geography and Public Policy. Princeton University
Press.
Brakman, S., and B. J. Heijdra (eds.) (2004): The Monopolistic Competition
Revolution in Retrospect. Cambridge University Press.
Dixit, A. K., and J. E. Stiglitz (1977): “Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity,” American Economic Review, 67(3), 297–308.
Neary, J. P. (2001): “Of Hype and Hyperbolas: Introducing the New EconomicGeography,” Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 536–561.
(2004): “Monopolistic Competition and International Trade Theory,” inThe Monopolistic Competition Revolution in Retrospect, ed. by S. Brakman, andB. J. Heijdra, pp. 159–184. Cambridge University Press.

6