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 10 1 1 100101010 , , and 10 10 9.9 10000 , , And Allocations describe the utility that each person gets If you as the government could choose between allocation X , , or and allocation Y which would you choose? , , Bundle y is at least as good for everyone and better for at least one person 9 10 Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Allocation x Allocation y Allocation x Allocation y Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor 3553 3553 10 10 1 1 10 10 11 100101010 100 10 10 10 10 10 9.9 10000 10 10 9.9 10000 11 12 Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Allocation x Allocation y Allocation x Allocation y Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor 3553 10 10 9.9 10000 10 10 1 1 Why are we not prepared to say that y is better that x 100101010 Kendrick only loses 0.1 units of utility, but Taylor gains 9990 10 10 9.9 10000 Surely this is a good deal? What about this allocation? No! Makes Taylor MUCH better off But makes Kendrick worse off Pareto ranking is not complete: Not all bundles can be compared 2 3/1/2016 13 14 Which Allocations Do You Prefer? Pareto Optimality Allocation x Allocation y Along with the definition of Pareto dominance comes the Kendrick Taylor Kendrick Taylor definition of Pareto optimality 10 10 9.9 10000 Definition: An allocation is Pareto optimal if it is not Pareto Not necessarily, for two reasons dominated by any other feasible bundle 1. Remember, utility numbers don’t mean anything beyond bigger or smaller We could find another utility representation which would mean that Taylor i.e., in our simple 2-person, 2-good economy, a bundle is Pareto only gains 0.0001 units optimal if there is no other way of dividing up the endowments 2. Even if we equated utility with happiness, we would be making interpersonal comparisons to make at least one person better off without making the other Would you be prepared for one person to lose 1000 utility units if 1000 person worse off people gained 1 utility unity each? Some people might say yes, some no Pareto optimality is also sometimes referred to as Pareto Everyone should agree that Pareto optimality is a good thing Efficiency You (as a person) may prefer y to x. You (as an economist) do not 15 16 Finding Pareto Optimal Points Finding Pareto Optimal Points We can find Pareto Optimal points by solving a constrained 1. CHOOSE ,, , optimization problem: 2. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE , 1. CHOOSE ,, , 3. SUBJECT TO 2. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE , , u 3. SUBJECT TO Feasibility + + and + + , u What do solutions to the social planner’s problem look like? Feasibility + + and + + This is sometimes called the social planner’s problem We can solve the problem in two stages Maximize the utility of consumer 1 while fixing consumer 2’s utility at First, use feasibility to get rid of and u + The solution must be Pareto optimal + No way to improve the utility of consumer 1 without reducing the utility of consumer 2 17 18 Finding Pareto Optimal Points Finding Pareto Optimal Points Problem becomes ,, , + , + u 1. CHOOSE , Taking derivatives: 0 2. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE , 3. SUBJECT TO 0 + , + u Now set up the Lagrangian: + ,+ u0 ,,, + , + u ) Using the first two equations gives 3 3/1/2016 19 20 Finding Pareto Optimal Points Pareto Efficiency in the Edgeworth Box 1 2 w b+w b In other words , , Slope of the indifference curve of consumer 1 is the same as that of 2 For a Pareto optimum, the rate at which consumer 1 trades off good a for b is the same as the rate at which consumer 2 trades off good a for X b Good b This makes sense: say consumer 1 ‘valued’ a more than consumer 2 Z i.e. consumer 1 was prepared to give up more b to get one unit of a than was consumer 2 Y Could this be a Pareto optimum? No! Could make both consumers better off by giving 1 more of a and 1 2 2 more than b w a+w a Good a 21 22 The Contract Curve The Contract Curve 1 2 w b+w b Remember the Social Planner’s problem is given by 1. CHOOSE ,, , 2. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE , 3. SUBJECT TO , u Good b Feasibility + + and + + There are many such problems, with different levels of u for consumer 2 I.e. different indifference curves The Contract Curve Each of these problems has a different solution The set of solutions to all such problems is the set of Pareto optimal points 1 2 w a+w a This is sometimes also called the contract curve Good a 24 Equilibrium and Pareto Optimality So we now have two different classifications of allocations What we think will happen (the equilibrium of the economy) What we think should happen (Pareto optimality) A natural question is: what is the relationship between these two? Equilibrium and Pareto Specifically, we may want to ask two questions Optimality 1. Are equilibria Pareto efficient? 2. Are Pareto efficient points equilibria? The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics To give away the punchline, the answer to both questions is a qualified yes These are two of the most fundamental theorems in economics Hence the names! 23 4 3/1/2016 25 26 A Worked Example A Worked Example First we will show that market equilibria are Pareto efficient The equilibrium allocations were 3 4 29 ∗ ,, Last week we calculated the equilibrium for the following 2 7 14 economy 21 29 ∗ ,, 1 8 8 1. The endowment of each agent ∗ 1 20 27 , , =3 2 14 14 7 5 27 ∗ =2 , , 8 2 8 =1 ∗ =5 And equilibrium price was 2. The preferences of each agent Is this Pareto optimal? ,= , = 27 28 A Worked Example A Worked Example Let’s check From before, problem becomes 1. CHOOSE , First, fix the utility of person 2 at the level achieved in equilibrium: 2. IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE ,= ,= 3. SUBJECT TO + , + 4 7 Now figure out the maximal utility of consumer 1 given feasibility First set up the Lagrangian: and making sure that consumer 2 gets the above utility 729 ,, 4 7 ) 112 29 30 A Worked Example A Worked Example 729 , , 4 7 ) 7 112 4 Taking derivatives: Using the fact that 4 and 7 , this implies that 7 0 7 4 4 0 And so, plugging into the constraint on the utility of consumer 2 729 4 7 ) 112 or Using the first two equations gives 27 14 , or Plugging back in to the above identities will recover the rest of the 7 competitive equilibrium 4 5 3/1/2016 31 32 A Worked Example Competitive Equilibria Lie on the Contract Curve 1 2 w b+w b Competitive So this particular equilibrium is also Pareto optimal Equilibrium Why? Magic! The Contract Curve (It’s not Magic) Good b Endowment The key observation is the following: For Pareto optima, the MRS of consumer 1 equals the MRS of consumer 2 For a market equilibrium the MRS of consumer 1 equals the price ratio and the MRS of consumer 2 equals the price ratio 1 2 And therefore equal each other w a+w a Good a 33 34 The First Fundamental Theorem of The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics Welfare Economics Now you should be asking the question: was there something Proof of the FFTWE (by contradiction) special about this particular example? Assume that ,, , are equilibrium allocations for some price No! But they are not a Pareto optimal The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics: If Then there exists another feasible allocation ,, , such that preferences are monotonic, then any competitive equilibrium is , , and Pareto efficient , , This result is so fundamental that we are going to prove it! And , , or , , Without loss of generality, assume that , , 35 36 The First Fundamental Theorem of The First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics