Barter Exchange and Core: Lecture 2

Similar documents
Microeconomics: General Equilibrium Analysis

Microeconomics: Barter Economy and its Outcomes

Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics

Tema 2. Edgeworth s Exchange Theory

Lecture Notes on The Core

Economics 200A part 2 UCSD Fall quarter 2010 Prof. R. Starr Mr. Ben Backes 1 FINAL EXAMINATION - SUGGESTED ANSWERS

GE in production economies

Problem Set VI: Edgeworth Box

Trade on Markets. Both consumers' initial endowments are represented bythesamepointintheedgeworthbox,since

Notes, Comments, and Letters to the Editor. Cores and Competitive Equilibria with Indivisibilities and Lotteries

Theoretical Tools of Public Finance. 131 Undergraduate Public Economics Emmanuel Saez UC Berkeley

Lecture 15 - General Equilibrium with Production

2. Equlibrium and Efficiency

Advanced Microeconomics

Economics 201B Second Half. Lecture 4, 3/18/10

Tools of normative analysis

1 The Exchange Economy...

Game Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 2012

Econ 618: Topic 11 Introduction to Coalitional Games

NASH PROGRAM Abstract: Nash program

Radner Equilibrium: Definition and Equivalence with Arrow-Debreu Equilibrium

Pauline is considering becoming a member of a CD club, which offers discounts on CDs. There is a membership fee of 100 but then each CD is only 10.

Microeconomics of Banking: Lecture 2

Game Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 2012

Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics at Yale University

Exchange. M. Utku Ünver Micro Theory. Boston College. M. Utku Ünver Micro Theory (BC) Exchange 1 / 23

The Edgeworth exchange formulation of bargaining models and market experiments

The Robinson Crusoe model; the Edgeworth Box in Consumption and Factor allocation

Module 2 THEORETICAL TOOLS & APPLICATION. Lectures (3-7) Topics

PhD Qualifier Examination

Arrow-Debreu Equilibrium

Envy-free and efficient minimal rights: recursive. no-envy

A. Introduction to choice under uncertainty 2. B. Risk aversion 11. C. Favorable gambles 15. D. Measures of risk aversion 20. E.

EC202. Microeconomic Principles II. Summer 2009 examination. 2008/2009 syllabus

14.54 International Trade Lecture 5: Exchange Economies (II) Welfare, Inequality, and Trade Imbalances

Final Examination December 14, Economics 5010 AF3.0 : Applied Microeconomics. time=2.5 hours

Cooperative Game Theory

Uncertainty in Equilibrium

Attitudes Toward Risk. Joseph Tao-yi Wang 2013/10/16. (Lecture 11, Micro Theory I)

Benefits and damages, uniformly mixing flow pollutant

Economics 101A (Lecture 24) Stefano DellaVigna

Competitive Outcomes, Endogenous Firm Formation and the Aspiration Core

ECON 581. Introduction to Arrow-Debreu Pricing and Complete Markets. Instructor: Dmytro Hryshko

Microeconomics IV. First Semster, Course

Externality and Corrective Measures

Chapter 2 Equilibrium and Efficiency

Elements of Economic Analysis II Lecture II: Production Function and Profit Maximization

Intermediate Microeconomics EXCHANGE AND EFFICIENCY BEN VAN KAMMEN, PHD PURDUE UNIVERSITY

Externality and Corrective Measures

1 Two Period Exchange Economy

ANSWERS TO PRACTICE PROBLEMS oooooooooooooooo

Subgame Perfect Cooperation in an Extensive Game

Chapter 1 Microeconomics of Consumer Theory

Chapter 3 Introduction to the General Equilibrium and to Welfare Economics

Intermediate public economics 5 Externalities Hiroaki Sakamoto

(a) Describe the game in plain english and find its equivalent strategic form.

The Core of a Strategic Game *

Chapter 23: Choice under Risk

Answers to June 11, 2012 Microeconomics Prelim

Compulsory Land Acquisition: Bargaining and Litigation over Compensation

Lecture 1 Introduction and Definition of TU games

CMSC 474, Introduction to Game Theory 20. Shapley Values

Envy-Free Configurations in the Market Economy

The Static Model. Consumer Assumptions on the preferences: Consumer. A description of the Model Economy

Practice Questions for Mid-Term Examination - I. In answering questions just consider symmetric and stationary allocations!

General Examination in Microeconomic Theory SPRING 2014

1. Suppose a production process is described by a Cobb-Douglas production function f(v 1, v 2 ) = v 1 1/2 v 2 3/2.

14.54 International Trade Lecture 3: Preferences and Demand

Introduction to game theory LECTURE 2

Chapter 12 GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM AND WELFARE. Copyright 2005 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning. All rights reserved.

Chapter 31: Exchange

Department of Economics The Ohio State University Final Exam Answers Econ 8712

PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV

Aggregation with a double non-convex labor supply decision: indivisible private- and public-sector hours

Rational Choice and Moral Monotonicity. James C. Cox

Two Mathematical Versions of the Coase Theorem

3 General Equilibrium in a Competitive Market

Lecture # Applications of Utility Maximization

GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM. Wanna Download D. Salvatore, International Economics for free? Gr8, visit now jblogger2016.wordpress.com

Economics 101. Lecture 3 - Consumer Demand

Lecture 7. The consumer s problem(s) Randall Romero Aguilar, PhD I Semestre 2018 Last updated: April 28, 2018

LECTURE NOTES ON MICROECONOMICS

General Equilibrium under Uncertainty

Topics in Contract Theory Lecture 3

3/1/2016. Intermediate Microeconomics W3211. Lecture 4: Solving the Consumer s Problem. The Story So Far. Today s Aims. Solving the Consumer s Problem

Golden rule. The golden rule allocation is the stationary, feasible allocation that maximizes the utility of the future generations.

Lecture B-1: Economic Allocation Mechanisms: An Introduction Warning: These lecture notes are preliminary and contain mistakes!

The Walras Core of an Economy and Its Limit Theorem Λ Cheng-Zhong Qin y Lloyd S Shapley z Ken-Ichi Shimomura x This Version: September 23, 2005; First

Lecture 10: Two-Period Model

Supplement to the lecture on the Diamond-Dybvig model

Core and Top Trading Cycles in a Market with Indivisible Goods and Externalities

MS&E 246: Lecture 5 Efficiency and fairness. Ramesh Johari

Characterising competitive equilibrium in terms of opportunity. Robert Sugden. University of East Anglia, UK.

Welfare Economics. Jan Abrell Centre for Energy Policy and Economics (CEPE) D-MTEC, ETH Zurich. Welfare Economics

ECON 3020 Intermediate Macroeconomics

Core and Top Trading Cycles in a Market with Indivisible Goods and Externalities

Single-Parameter Mechanisms

Lecture 2B: Alonso Model

The Second Welfare Theorem of Classical Welfare Economics

Interest Rates and Currency Prices in a Two-Country World. Robert E. Lucas, Jr. 1982

Transcription:

Barter Exchange and Core: Lecture 2 Ram Singh Course 001 September 21, 2016 Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 1 / 15

The How can we redistribute the endowments such that: Every individual prefers the reallocated bundle received over her initial endowment No subset of individuals can do better for themselves using their own endowments Every subset of individuals prefers the reallocation made to the subset as a whole over what they can do own their own. Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 2 / 15

Outcome under Barter I Assume all exchanges are voluntary. For a two-person two-goods economy, we saw: Allocation y = (y 1, y 2 ) will be blocked/rejected, if any of the following holds: 1 u 1 (e 1 ) > u 1 (y 1 ); or 2 u 2 (e 2 ) > u 2 (y 2 ) ; or 3 There exists a feasible allocation (x 1, x 2 ) that is Pareto superior to (y 1, y 2 ), i.e., for some (x 1, x 2 ) holds for at least one i. For the following example : u i (x i ) u i (y i ). for i = 1, 2.And u i (x i ) > u i (y i ) Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 3 / 15

Outcome under Barter II We saw Endowments: e 1 = (1, 9), and e 2 = (9, 1) Preferences: u i (x, y) = x.y. That is, u 1 (x 1 1.x 1 2 ) = x 1 1.x 1 2 and u 2 (x 2 1.x 2 2 ) = x 2 1.x 2 2 Allocation: x 1 = (3, 3), and x 2 = (7, 7) x = (x 1, x 2 ) is Pareto superior to e = (e 1, e 2 ). e = (e 1, e 2 ) will be rejected in favour of x = (x 1, x 2 ). Formally speaking, e = (e 1, e 2 ) will be blocked by allocation x = (x 1, x 2 ). Allocation x 1 = (3, 3), and x 2 = (7, 7) cannot be blocked Allocation z 1 = (7, 7), and z 2 = (3, 3) cannot be blocked Allocation w 1 = (5, 5), and z 2 = (5, 5) cannot be blocked Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 4 / 15

Core Allocations: Properties I For a two-person two-good economy, an allocation x = (x 1, x 2 ) belongs to the Core, only if Every i prefers x i at least as much as e i, i = 1, 2 Allocation x = (x 1, x 2 ) is Pareto Optimum For the above example, What is the size of the Core? Does Core denote the set of possible outcomes under Barter? Does the set of Pareto optimum allocations depend on the initial endowments? Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 5 / 15

Core of a 3 2 economy I Example Consider the following three-person, two-good economy: Endowments: e 1 = (1, 9), e 2 = (9, 1), and e 3 = (5, 5) Preferences: u 1 (x 1 1.x 1 2 ) = x 1 1.x 1 2, u2 (x 2 1.x 2 2 ) = x 2 1.x 2 2, and u 3 (x 3 1.x 3 2 ) = x 3 1.x 3 2 Now, consider the following allocation: x 1 = (3, 3), x 2 = (7, 7), and x 3 = (5, 5). Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 6 / 15

Core of a 3 2 economy II When x 1 = (3, 3), x 2 = (7, 7), and x 3 = (5, 5). Is the allocation x = (x 1, x 2, x 3 ) feasible? Is allocation x = (x 1, x 2, x 3 ) Pareto-superior to e = (e 1, e 2, e 3 )? Is allocation x = (x 1, x 2, x 3 ) Pareto Optimum? Does allocation x = (x 1, x 2, x 3 ) belong to the Core? Consider a Coalition of 1 and 3, i.e., S = {1, 3}. Let y be such that y 1 = (2, 5) and y 3 = (4, 9). Recall, e 1 = (1, 9) and e 3 = (5, 5). Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 7 / 15

Core of a 3 2 economy III So the set S = {1, 3} is better of rejecting the allocation x = (x 1, x 2, x 3 ), as defined above We can say that S = {1, 3} forms a blocking coalition against the allocation x = (x 1, x 2, x 3 ), So, allocation x = (x 1, x 2, x 3 ) in Not unblocked and hence does not belong to the Core Remark A Pareto Optimum allocation may not belong to the Core will not belong to the Core if there exists a blocking coalition Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 8 / 15

Blocking Coalition Here is a general definition of Blocking Coalition for N M economy. Definition Let S {1,..., N}. S is called a blocking coalitions for x = (x 1, x 2,..., x N ) if there is some vector y such that i S yj i = ej i i S for all j = 1,..., M u i (y i ) = u i (y i 1,..., y i M) u i (x i 1,..., x i M) = u i (x i ) for all i S u i (y i ) = u i (y i 1,..., y i M) > u i (x i 1,..., x i M) = u i (x i ) for some i S Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 9 / 15

Core of Barter Exchange Consider a pure exchange economy (u i (.), e i ) i N. For this economy, Definition Core is a set of allocations, C(u i (.) i N, e), such that if x C(u i (.) i N, e), then x CANNOT be blocked by any coalition. Remark The size of the Core, i.e., outcome of barter depends on the nature of the economy: the nature of individual preferences the initial endowment/wealth the number of individuals in the economy Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 10 / 15

Size of the Core I Example Consider the following three-person, two-good economy: Endowments: e 1 = (1, 9), e 2 = (9, 1), and e 3 = (5, 5) Preferences: u 1 (x 1 1.x 1 2 ) = x 1 1.x 1 2, u2 (x 2 1.x 2 2 ) = x 2 1.x 2 2, and u 3 (x 3 1.x 3 2 ) = x 3 1.x 3 2 We have seen that allocation: x 1 = (3, 3), x 2 = (7, 7), and x 3 = (5, 5) does not belong to the Core. Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 11 / 15

Size of the Core II How to find the Core allocations? If there are 25 individuals, you have to check 2 25 1 as potential coalitions that may block an allocation. Does the Core always exist? Scarf (1963) showed that when indifference curves are convex, the Core is non-empty Size of the Core shrinks with number of agents - Edgeworth (1881); Debreu and Scarf (1963); Aumann (1964), etc. Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 12 / 15

The Core in Real World In real world, Will bargaining among individuals always lead to one of the allocations in the Core? Are there factors that can frustrate successful bargaining among individuals? Can market lead to the same set of outcomes as the Barter will in ideal world? Can outcome under market be better than under the Barter? Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 13 / 15

Barter Vs Market I 1 Informational and logistical requirements Barter requires Search costs - to identify suitable trading partners Successful negotiations Market requires No search costs No cooperation - only decision making at individual level 2 Relative Efficiency Barter Pareto efficient outcome is unlikely, for large set of individuals Market Pareto efficient outcome more likely, especially for large set of individuals The claims are valid with or without production Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 14 / 15

Barter Vs Market II 3 Effect of Policy Interventions Barter Policy intervention only through reallocation of endowments Market Policy intervention through reallocation of endowments as well as direct transfers of purchasing power Remark Neither Barter nor Market can guarantee the intended outcome Some endowments are not transferable - E.g.???? Ram Singh: (DSE) Exchange and Core September 21, 2016 15 / 15