DOCSLIB.ORG

Economics of Social Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Economics of Social Policy Economics of Social Policy Miguel Gouveia Faculdade de Ciências Económicas e Empresariais UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA PORTUGUESA Results from Welfare Economics - 1 ! General equilibrium in Edgeworth boxes: consumption α with endowments, 2 consumers, 2 goods. ω 0 ! 1st Welfare Theorem: The allocation of resources that results from a competitive equilibrium is Pareto Optimal 1st Theorem - illustration ! 2nd Welfare Theorem: If preferences and technology are convex given a Pareto optimal resource allocation α we can find a competitive equilibrium that generates that resource allocation. That β equilibrium is obtained by a suitable ω distribution of the initial endowments in 0 the economy. 2nd Theorem - illustration2 1 Results from Welfare Economics -2 2 G o α o β ω d 0 Transfer of good y from consumer y ω 1 to consumer 2 1 1 Good X Endowment transfers Transfer of good x from consumer correspond to “lump- 1 to consumer 2 sum” taxes U2 In this example the redistribution from consumer 1 to 2, from consumption vector α to consumption vector β, corresponds to a move along the utility β possibility frontier α U31 Results from Welfare Economics - 3 ! Is it the case that the 2nd Welfare Theorem implies that there is no tradeoff between efficiency and equity? Can we do any redistribution without compromising efficiency? ! No. There are endowments that cannot be U redistributed. Ex: time, intelligence, 2 SWF2 creativity, energy, physical abilities and β characteristics (highly valued by the SWF market), etc. φ 1 α ! Political decision makers have to choose U1 between efficiency and equity. Their “values” can be analytically represented by Social Welfare Functions- SWFs 4 2 Results from Welfare Economics -4 U2 ! Negishi’s Theorem.Consider a Social β welfare function of the form α SWF= ∑ λ U . i i U1 ! Then, the allocation and utility distribution that maximizes this SWF is Pareto optimal for positive λ’s. Moreover, if the utility possibility frontier is convex, for any allocation A and utility distribution U that is Pareto optimal there is a vector of welfare weights λ’s such that A and U are the solution to the SWF maximization problem. 5 Fair Allocations 1 ! SWF are defined over the space of individual utilities and they summarize ethical judgments and moral values. But the implications of these judgments are sometimes difficult to evaluate. ! Also it is interesting to examine issues of fairness directly in the space of goods (allocations). ! If we have a total endowment in the economy of goods x and y given by (X, Y) and n individuals equally deserving, most would agree that giving each individual a vector (X/n, Y/n) is a fair allocation. Intuitively, there is an ethical appeal to symmetry. ! But is the equal division allocation efficient? NOT NECESSARILY because people have different tastes. 6 3 Fair Allocations 2 In this case, the symmetric ω allocation e is outside the contract ω curve and thus is Pareto inefficient. e This example shows symmetry is not a good criterion for judging an allocation. Inefficiency of equal division ω Naturally, we can improve on e if we allow for trade among agents. Are all allocations obtained from trading starting at an equal division equitable? NOT NECESSARILY. If n=3 and persons 1 and 2 have the same preferences whereas 3 is different, and 1 and 3 trade and make themselves better off, then 2 will be worse off than 3 and evaluate the post trade allocation as unfair. 7 Fair Allocations 3 How can we define an equitable allocation? By a NO ENVY condition. An allocation is equitable if no agent prefers another agent’s bundle of goods to his own. In an Edgeworth box that means an agent does not prefer to swap allocations with the other agent. ω! i ω! s ω Allocation i is envy free or equitable since no one would like to trade places. But it is not efficient. 8 4 Fair Allocations 4 ! We know the set of all efficient allocations is the contract curve. What is the set of all envy free allocations in an Edgeworth box? 2 ! ! 1 envies 2 ! ! 1 Envy boundary for 1 9 Fair Allocations 5 ! We first build the envy boundary for agent 1, then for agent 2 and then take the intersection. No envy Mutual envy 2 2 envies 1 1 envies 2 Mutual envy 1 No envy 10 5 Fair Allocations 6 ! The set of FAIR allocations is the intersection of the sets of efficient allocations, the contract curve, and the set of all envy free allocations. 2 1 Fair allocations 11 Fair Allocations 7 One way to find fair allocations is to look for a competitive equilibrium started from an equal division of the endowments. In this case no agent envies other agents. 2 ω e 1 12 6 Fair Allocations 8 ! The fact that a competitive equilibrium from equal division is a fair allocation tells us that the market is not only efficient but also fair provided endowments are equitably allocated to begin with. ! This may be interpreted as saying the market is fair as a process. ! Unfortunately, there are limits to the significance of the result. In production economies envy-free and efficient allocations may not exist – we go back to the problem that some endowments simply cannot be redistributed. 13 Fair Allocations–Cobb-Douglas Example 1 1 2 ! Preferences: U =lnx1+2lny1 U =2lnx2+lny2 ! Endowments: X=20 Y=10 ! The set of Fair allocations has all efficient and envy-free allocations. ! Contract curve MRS1=MRS2 ⇔ y1/2x1= 2y2/x2 ⇔ y1/2x1 = 2(10- y1)/(20-x1) : solving for y1 we find y1 =40 x1/(20+3x1). ! Points in the contract curve: (x1=0,y1=0), (x1=4,y1=5), (x1=10,y1=8), (x1=20,y1=10), Contract Curve 10 9 8 7 6 Y 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 X 14 7 Fair Allocations–Cobb-Douglas Example 2 1 ! The envy free frontier for agent 1 is defined by: U = lnx1+2lny1 = ⇔ 2 2 2 ln(20-x1)+2ln(10-y1) x1=20(10-y1) /(y1 +(10-y1) ) 2 ! The frontier for agent 2 is U =2lnx2+lny2=2ln(20-x2) + ln(10-y2) , 2 2 2 y2=10(20-x2) /(x2 +(20-x2) ). For the purpose of graphical representation we can re-write 2’s frontier in terms of x1 and y1: 2 2 2 ⇔ 2 2 2 10-y1=10(x1) /(x1 +(20-x1) ) y1=10(20-x1) /(x1 +(20-x1) ) Envy Frontiers 10 9 8 7 6 Y 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 101214161820 15 X y2 y1 Fair Allocations–Cobb-Douglas Example 3 ! Fair allocations are a subset of the contract curve y1 =40 x1/(20+3x1). 2 2 2 The intersection at the envy frontier 1, x1=20(10-y1) /(y1 +(10-y1) ), gives us y1=6,14 and x1=6,39. 2 2 2 ! 2’s frontier, in terms of x1 and y1 , is y1=10(20-x1) /(x1 +(20-x1) ). The intersection is y1=7,16 and x1=7,73 Fair Allocations 10 7.73; 7.16 8 6 Y 6.39; 6.14 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 X y2 y1 cc 16 8 Fair Allocations–Cobb-Douglas Example 4 ! Finally, let us check that the competitive equilibrium from equal division is Fair. There are two goods but by Walras’ Law we only need to calculate the equilibrium in one market. Normalize the price of x to 1 (only relative prices matter). ! The consumer’s problem is λ Max x,y L = lnx1+2lny1 + [10-x1 –p(5-y1 )]. ! Solving the First order conditions, ∂∂LL12 =−=λλ0; =− ;10 −+xp (5 − y ) = 0 ∂∂ 11 xx11 yy 11 d the demand for y1 is given by y1 =20/3p+10/3. d ! The demand for y from consumer two is y2 =10/3p+5/3. ! In the general equilibrium demand equals supply: 10= 10/3p+5/3+ 20/3p+10/3, p=2. This implies y1=20/3=6.(6) and y2 =10/3=3.(3). This also means x1=6.(6) and x2 =13.(3). 17 Fair Allocations–Cobb-Douglas Example 5 Fair Allocations 10 8 6.66; 6.66 6 Y 4 2 0 02468101214161820 X 18 y2 y1 cc 9 Assumptions of perfect competition ! Agents are price takers. – Many agents on the demand and on the supply side. Each agent is small. Market failures resulting from violation: monopoly (natural or not...), monopsony, cartels, etc. ! Resources are privately owned and used – Market failures resulting from violation: public goods, externalities ! No restrictions to the mobility of resources – Market failures resulting from violation in the form of barriers to entry and exit in certain professions or industries (sectors). ! All agents have equal access to relevant information – Market failures resulting from violation: asymmetric information problems such as moral hazard or adverse selection. 19 Welfare Measures - 1 Consumer Surplus Producer Surplus P D P S p PS = Profit + p1 1 CSEC p PSEC Fixed Costs p0 0 Q Q ! CS neglects income effects. It is an adequate measure for situations where the income effect is negligible, typically when the good has a small household budget share. ! To measure changes in some important markets such as the labor market, housing and other large household budget share goods we should use exact measures: the equivalent and the compensatory variations. 20 10 Welfare Measures - 2 ! Concepts – U(x, y) utility function; M Income; px py prices –X(M,px ,py ), Y(M, px ,py) demand functions –U(X(M,px ,py ), Y(M, px ,py)) = V(M, px ,py ) indirect utility 0 ⇔ 0 –V(M,px ,py )= U E (U ,px ,py ) = M, expenditure function ! Compensating Variation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lecture Notes General Equilibrium Theory: Ss205
    LECTURE NOTES GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM THEORY: SS205 FEDERICO ECHENIQUE CALTECH 1 2 Contents 0. Disclaimer 4 1. Preliminary definitions 5 1.1. Binary relations 5 1.2. Preferences in Euclidean space 5 2. Consumer Theory 6 2.1. Digression: upper hemi continuity 7 2.2. Properties of demand 7 3. Economies 8 3.1. Exchange economies 8 3.2. Economies with production 11 4. Welfare Theorems 13 4.1. First Welfare Theorem 13 4.2. Second Welfare Theorem 14 5. Scitovsky Contours and cost-benefit analysis 20 6. Excess demand functions 22 6.1. Notation 22 6.2. Aggregate excess demand in an exchange economy 22 6.3. Aggregate excess demand 25 7. Existence of competitive equilibria 26 7.1. The Negishi approach 28 8. Uniqueness 32 9. Representative Consumer 34 9.1. Samuelsonian Aggregation 37 9.2. Eisenberg's Theorem 39 10. Determinacy 39 GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM THEORY 3 10.1. Digression: Implicit Function Theorem 40 10.2. Regular and Critical Economies 41 10.3. Digression: Measure Zero Sets and Transversality 44 10.4. Genericity of regular economies 45 11. Observable Consequences of Competitive Equilibrium 46 11.1. Digression on Afriat's Theorem 46 11.2. Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu Theorem: Anything goes 47 11.3. Brown and Matzkin: Testable Restrictions On Competitve Equilibrium 48 12. The Core 49 12.1. Pareto Optimality, The Core and Walrasian Equiilbria 51 12.2. Debreu-Scarf Core Convergence Theorem 51 13. Partial equilibrium 58 13.1. Aggregate demand and welfare 60 13.2. Production 61 13.3. Public goods 62 13.4. Lindahl equilibrium 63 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 the Basic OLG Model: Diamond
    Chapter 3 The basic OLG model: Diamond There exists two main analytical frameworks for analyzing the basic intertem- poral choice, consumption versus saving, and the dynamic implications of this choice: overlapping-generations (OLG) models and representative agent models. In the first type of models the focus is on (a) the interaction between different generations alive at the same time, and (b) the never-ending entrance of new generations and thereby new decision makers. In the second type of models the household sector is modelled as consisting of a finite number of infinitely-lived dynasties. One interpretation is that the parents take the utility of their descen- dants into account by leaving bequests and so on forward through a chain of intergenerational links. This approach, which is also called the Ramsey approach (after the British mathematician and economist Frank Ramsey, 1903-1930), will be described in Chapter 8 (discrete time) and Chapter 10 (continuous time). In the present chapter we introduce the OLG approach which has shown its usefulness for analysis of many issues such as: public debt, taxation of capital income, financing of social security (pensions), design of educational systems, non-neutrality of money, and the possibility of speculative bubbles. We will focus on what is known as Diamond’sOLG model1 after the American economist and Nobel Prize laureate Peter A. Diamond (1940-). Among the strengths of the model are: The life-cycle aspect of human behavior is taken into account. Although the • economy is infinitely-lived, the individual agents are not. During lifetime one’s educational level, working capacity, income, and needs change and this is reflected in the individual labor supply and saving behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 the Overlapping Generations (OG) Model
    Chapter 4 The overlapping generations (OG) model 4.1 The model Now we will briefly discuss a macroeconomic model which has most of the important features of the RA model, but one - people die. This small con- cession to reality will have a big impact on implications. Recall that the RA model had a few special characteristics: 1. An unique equilibrium exists. 2. The economy follows a deterministic path. 3. The equilibrium is Pareto efficient. The overlapping generations model will not always have these characteristics. So my presentation of this model will have two basic goals: to outline a model that appears frequency in the literature, and to use the model to illustrate some features that appear in other models and that some macroeconomists think are important to understanding business cycles. 1 2 CHAPTER 4. THE OVERLAPPING GENERATIONS (OG) MODEL 4.1.1 The model Time, information, and demography Discrete, indexed by t. In each period, one worker is born. The worker lives two periods, so there is always one young worker and one old worker. We’re going to assume for the time being that workers have perfect foresight, so we’ll dispense with the Et’s. Workers Each worker is identified with the period of her birth - we’ll call the worker born in period t “worker t”. Let c1,t be worker t’s consumption when young, and let c2,t+1 be her consumption when old. She only cares about her own consumption. Her utility is: Ut = u(c1,t) + βu(c2,t+1) (4.1) The worker is born with no capital or bond holdings.
    [Show full text]
  • Pareto Efficiency by MEGAN MARTORANA
    RF Fall Winter 07v42-sig3-INT 2/27/07 8:45 AM Page 8 JARGONALERT Pareto Efficiency BY MEGAN MARTORANA magine you and a friend are walking down the street competitive equilibrium is typically included among them. and a $100 bill magically appears. You would likely A major drawback of Pareto efficiency, some ethicists claim, I share the money evenly, each taking $50, deeming this is that it does not suggest which of the Pareto efficient the fairest division. According to Pareto efficiency, however, outcomes is best. any allocation of the $100 would be optimal — including the Furthermore, the concept does not require an equitable distribution you would likely prefer: keeping all $100 for distribution of wealth, nor does it necessarily suggest taking yourself. remedial steps to correct for existing inequality. If the Pareto efficiency says that an allocation is efficient if an incomes of the wealthy increase while the incomes of every- action makes some individual better off and no individual one else remain stable, such a change is Pareto efficient. worse off. The concept was developed by Vilfredo Pareto, an Martin Feldstein, an economist at Harvard University and Italian economist and sociologist known for his application president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, of mathematics to economic analysis, and particularly for his explains that some see this as unfair. Such critics, while con- Manual of Political Economy (1906). ceding that the outcome is Pareto Pareto used this work to develop efficient, might complain: “I don’t his theory of pure economics, have fewer material goods, but I analyze “ophelimity,” his own have the extra pain of living in a term indicating the power of more unequal world.” In short, giving satisfaction, and intro- they are concerned about not only duce indifference curves.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrow-Debreu Pricing: Equilibrium
    ECON 337901 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS Peter Ireland Boston College Spring 2021 These lecture notes by Peter Ireland are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. 9 Arrow-Debreu Pricing: Equilibrium A Arrow-Debreu vs CAPM B The Arrow-Debreu Economy C Competitive Equilibrium and Pareto Optimum D Optimal Risk Sharing E Equilibrium and No-Arbitrage F Euler Equations Arrow-Debreu vs CAPM The Arrow-Debreu framework was developed in the 1950s and 1960s by Kenneth Arrow (US, b.1932, Nobel Prize 1972) and Gerard Debreu (France, 1921-2004, Nobel Prize 1983), some key references being: Gerard Debreu, Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Kenneth Arrow, \The Role of Securities in the Optimal Allocation of Risk-Bearing," Review of Economic Studies Vol.31 (April 1964): pp.91-96. Arrow-Debreu vs CAPM Since MPT and the CAPM were developed around the same time, it is useful to consider how each of these two approaches brings economic analysis to bear on the problem of pricing risky assets and cash flows. Arrow-Debreu vs CAPM Markowitz, Sharpe, Lintner, and Mossin put σ2 on one axis and µ on the other. Arrow-Debreu vs CAPM Markowitz, Sharpe, Lintner, and Mossin put σ2 on one axis and µ on the other. This allowed them to make more rapid progress, deriving important results for portfolio management and asset pricing. But the resulting theory proved very difficult to generalize: it requires either quadratic utility or normally distributed returns.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes for Macroeconomics I, 2004
    Lecture notes for Macroeconomics I, 2004 Per Krusell Please do NOT distribute without permission Comments and suggestions are welcome! 1 2 Chapter 1 Introduction These lecture notes cover a one-semester course. The overriding goal of the course is to begin provide methodological tools for advanced research in macroeconomics. The emphasis is on theory, although data guides the theoretical explorations. We build en- tirely on models with microfoundations, i.e., models where behavior is derived from basic assumptions on consumers' preferences, production technologies, information, and so on. Behavior is always assumed to be rational: given the restrictions imposed by the primi- tives, all actors in the economic models are assumed to maximize their objectives. Macroeconomic studies emphasize decisions with a time dimension, such as various forms of investments. Moreover, it is often useful to assume that the time horizon is in¯nite. This makes dynamic optimization a necessary part of the tools we need to cover, and the ¯rst signi¯cant fraction of the course goes through, in turn, sequential maximization and dynamic programming. We assume throughout that time is discrete, since it leads to simpler and more intuitive mathematics. The baseline macroeconomic model we use is based on the assumption of perfect com- petition. Current research often departs from this assumption in various ways, but it is important to understand the baseline in order to fully understand the extensions. There- fore, we also spend signi¯cant time on the concepts of dynamic competitive equilibrium, both expressed in the sequence form and recursively (using dynamic programming). In this context, the welfare properties of our dynamic equilibria are studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Intermediate Microeconomics W3211 Lecture 8
    3/1/2016 1 Intermediate Microeconomics W3211 Lecture 8: Introduction Equilibrium and Efficiency 1 Columbia University, Spring 2016 Mark Dean: [email protected] 2 3 4 The Story So Far…. Today’s Aims • We have solved the consumer’s problem We are now going to talk about the welfare properties of an • Determined what we think people will do given prices and income equilibrium Arguably this is one of the most interesting, but also misunderstood lectures in the entire course • We have solved for equilibrium in an endowment economy • Determined what we think prices and allocations will be It is where economists sometimes stop being scientists and start being policy makers Positive economics: what will happen • This is quite impressive! Normative economics: What should happen • We have our first prediction of how a simple economy works! • Granted it is an economy that only has consumers in it • We will get to firms soon enough 5 Today’s Aims Begin by defining the concept of Pareto optimality Most economists would agree that if an allocation is ‘good’ it should be Pareto optimal Then introduce the first ‘fundamental theorems of welfare economics’ Describes the relationship between Pareto optimality and Market equilibria Pareto Optimality 6 1 3/1/2016 7 8 Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Pareto Ranking Allocation x Allocation y Economists use a very specific way of comparing allocations: Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor Definition: Let ,, , be an allocation in an economy. 3553 We say it is Pareto dominated by ,, , if 10
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Allocation Through Competitive Equilibrium from Generic Incomes
    Fair Allocation through Competitive Equilibrium from Generic Incomes ABSTRACT notions of fairness that apply to such settings; our approach is to Two food banks catering to populations of different sizes with study fairness through the prism of competitive market equilibrium different needs must divide among themselves a donation offood – a connection made long ago by [31, 56]. items. What constitutes a “fair” allocation of the items among them? Competitive equilibrium from equal incomes (CEEI) is a classic 1.1 The economic concept of equilibrium in solution to the problem of fair and efficient allocation of goods Fisher markets with indivisible goods. among agents [Foley 1967, Varian 1974]. Every agent (foodbank) Let us suspend for a few paragraphs the discussion of fairness and receives an equal endowment of artificial currency with which to introduce the market equilibrium concept from microeconomics. “purchase” bundles of goods (food items). Prices for the goods are Imagine endowing the agents with budgets of some fake currency. set high enough such that the agents can simultaneously get their In a competitive equilibrium of the resulting market, goods are favorite within-budget bundle, and low enough such that all goods assigned prices, each player takes his preferred set of goods among are allocated (no waste). A CEEI satisfies mathematical notions of those that are within his budget, and the market clears. By the first fairness like fair-share, and also has built-in transparency – prices welfare theorem, the resulting allocation is Pareto efficient. can be published so the agents can verify they’re being treated In this paper we focus on the simple Fisher market model [10], equally.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenneth Arrow's Contributions to General
    Kenneth Arrow’s Contributions to General Equilibrium John Geanakoplos It is not easy to separate the significance and influence of the Arrow-Debreu model of general equilibrium from that of mathematical economics itself. In an extraordinary series of papers and books (1951, 1954, 1959, 1971), Ken Arrow and Gerard Debreu settled two of the oldest and most important questions of economics through arguments at least as elegant as any that have ever been given in all of economics, using the techniques of convexity and fixed point theory that are still, after sixty-five years, the most important mathematical devices in mathematical economics. More than any other, their model crystallized the mathematical-axiomatic approach that transformed economics from a field not much more mathematical than its sister social sciences like sociology and psychology into a discipline with the same mathematical rigor as physics and the other hard sciences.1 The Arrow Debreu model was simple enough to be understood immediately by mathematicians with no training in economics, yet general enough, given ever subtler interpretations of the notion of commodity, to encompass a large fraction of economics known up until that time, as special cases. Moreover, many subsequent developments in economics could be cast as elementary relaxations of the Arrow-Debreu framework. Today general equilibrium plays an absolutely central role in fields as diverse as international trade, public finance, development, finance, and macroeconomics. When we consider that Arrow not only derived the most fundamental properties of the model (along with Debreu, and McKenzie), but also provided the most significant interpretive extensions, it is no wonder that he remains the youngest Nobel Prize winner in economics.
    [Show full text]
  • General Equilibrium
    Hart Notes Matthew Basilico April, 2013 Part I General Equilibrium Chapter 15 - General Equilibrium Theory: Examples • Pure exchange economy with Edgeworth Box • Production with One-Firm, One-Consumer • [Small Open Economy] 15B. Pure Exchange: The Edgeworth Box Denitions and Set Up Pure Exchange Economy • An economy in which there are no production opportunities. Agents possess endowments, eco- nomic activity consists of trading and consumption Edgeworth Box Economy • Preliminaries Assume consumers act as price takers Two consumers i = 1; 2; Two commodities l = 1; 2 • Consumption and Endowment 0 Consumer i s consumption vector is xi = (x1i; x2i) Consumer 0s consumption set is 2 ∗ i R+ Consumer has preference relation over consumption vectors in this set ∗ i %i 0 Consumer i s endowment vector is !i = (!1i;!2i) ∗ Total endowment of good l is !¯l = !l1 + !l2 • Allocation 1 An allocation 4 is an assignment of a nonnegative consumption vector to each con- x 2 R+ sumer ∗ x = (x1; x2) = ((x11; x21) ; (x12; x22)) A feasible allocation is ∗ xl1 + xl2 ≤ !¯l for l = 1; 2 A nonwasteful allocation is ∗ xl1 + xl2 =! ¯l for l = 1; 2 ∗ These can be depicted in Edgeworth Box • Wealth and Budget Sets Wealth: Not given exogenously, only endowments are given. Wealth is determined by by prices. ∗ p · !i = p1!1i + p2!2i Budget Set: Given endowment, budget set is a function of prices 2 ∗ Bi (p) = xi 2 R+ : p · xi ≤ p · !i ∗ Graphically, draw budget line [slope = − p1 ]. Consumer 1's budget set consists of p2 all nonnegative vectors below and to the left; consumer 2's is above and to the right • Graph: Axes: horizontal is good 1, vertial is good 2 Origins: consumer 1 in SW corner (as usual), consumer 2 in NE corner (unique to Edgeworth boxes) • Oer Curve = Demand (as a function of p) (A depiction of preferences of each consumer) %i ∗ Asume strictly convex, continuous, strongly monotone 2 As p varies, budget line pivots around !.
    [Show full text]
  • Welfare Economics (Draft, September 22, 2006)
    WELFARE ECONOMICS (DRAFT, SEPTEMBER 22, 2006) W000031 In 1776, the same year as the American Declaration of Independence, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations. Smith laid out an argument that is now familiar to all economics students: (1) The principal human motive is self-interest. (2) The invisible hand of competition automatically transforms the self-interest of many into the common good. (3) Therefore, the best government policy for the growth of a nation’s wealth is that policy which governs least. Smith’s arguments were at the time directed against the mercantilists, who promoted active government intervention in the economy, particularly in regard to (ill- conceived) trade policies. Since his time, his arguments have been used and reused by proponents of laissez-faire throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Arguments of Smith and his opponents are still very much alive today: The pro-Smithians are those who place their faith in the market, who maintain that the provision of goods and services in society ought to be done, by and large, by private buyers and sellers acting in competition with each other. One can see the spirit of Adam Smith in economic policies involving deregulation, tax reduction, denationalizing industries, and reduction in government growth in western countries; and in the deliberate restoration of private markets in China, the former Soviet Union, and other eastern European countries. The anti-Smithians are also still alive and well; mercantilists are now called industrial policy advocates, and there are intellectuals and policy makers who believe that: (1) economic planning is superior to laissez-faire; (2) markets are often monopolized in the absence of government intervention, crippling the invisible hand of competition; (3) even if markets are competitive, the existence of external effects, public goods, information asymmetries and other market failures ensure that laissez-faire will not bring about the common good; (4) and in any case, laissez-faire may produce an intolerable degree of inequality.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Fair Division with Minimal Sharing Arxiv:1908.01669V2 [Cs.GT
    Efficient Fair Division with Minimal Sharing Fedor Sandomirskiy∗ and Erel Segal-Haleviy September 15, 2020 Abstract A collection of objects, some of which are good and some are bad, is to be divided fairly among agents with different tastes, modeled by additive utility-functions. If the objects cannot be shared, so that each of them must be entirely allocated to a single agent, then a fair division may not exist. What is the smallest number of objects that must be shared between two or more agents in order to attain a fair and efficient division? We focus on Pareto-optimal, envy-free and/or proportional allocations. We show that, for a generic instance of the problem | all instances except of a zero- measure set of degenerate problems | a fair Pareto-optimal division with the small- est possible number of shared objects can be found in polynomial time, assuming that the number of agents is fixed. The problem becomes computationally hard for degenerate instances, where agents' valuations are aligned for many objects. arXiv:1908.01669v2 [cs.GT] 13 Sep 2020 ∗Technion, IE&M, Haifa, Israel; Higher School of Economics, St.Petersburg, Russia yAriel University, Ariel, Israel 1 1 Introduction. What is a fair way to allocate objects without monetary transfers? When the objects are indivisible, it may be impossible to allocate them fairly | consider a single object and two people. A common approach to this problem is to look for an approximately-fair allocation. There are several definitions of approximate fairness, the most common of which is envy-freeness except one object.
    [Show full text]