Price characterization of stable allocations in exchange economies with externalities

A pure exchange economy where the consumers have utility functions U_i(v₁(x₁),…, v_m(x_m)) for i = 1,…, m and where x_j is the consumption of consumer j, is studied. U_i may be nonincreasing or nondecreasing in v_j for j ≠ i. i is said to be nonbenevolent or nonmalevolent towards j, accordingly.An allocation is stable if no coalition can redistribute what it receives in the allocation to get an allocation which is preferred, given the consumptions of the consumers in the complementary coalition. Results concerning the relation among the Paretooptimal, stable and equilibrium allocations (under different definitions of equilibrium) are given. In particular, it turns out that in case every consumer is non-benevolent towards every other consumer, the classical results, concerning the relation between Paretooptimal allocations and equilibrium allocations, can be generalized in a satisfactory way.     

Representing roommates’ preferences with symmetric utilities

In the context of the stable roommates problem, it is shown that acyclicity of preferences is equivalent to the existence of symmetric utility functions, i.e. the utility of agent i when matched with j is the same as j's utility when matched with i.     

Strategies as states

We define rationality and equilibrium when states specify agents’ actions and agents have arbitrary partitions over these states. Although some suggest that this natural modeling step leads to paradox, we show that Bayesian equilibrium is well defined and puzzles can be circumvented. The main problem arises when player j's partition informs j of i's move and i knows j's strategy. Then i's inference about j's move will vary with i's own move, and i may consequently play a dominated action. Plausible conditions on partitions rule out these scenarios. Equilibria exist under the same conditions, and more generally ε equilibria usually exist.     

On demand responsiveness in additive cost sharing

Under partial responsibility, the ranking of cost shares should never contradict that of demands.The Solidarity axiom says that if agent i demands more, j should not pay more if k pays less. It characterizes the quasi-proportional methods, sharing cost in proportion to `rescaled' demands.Full responsibility rules out cross-subsidization for additively separable costs. Restricting solidarity to submodular cost characterizes the fixed-flow methods, containing the Shapley-Shubik and serial methods.The quasi-proportional methods meet—but most fixed-flow methods fail—Group Monotonicity: if a group of agents increase their demands, not all of them pay less. Serial cost sharing is an exception.     

On the hellwig method of feasible portfolio construction

The work feasible portfolio is built into the work, that is, the k-dimensional Q column vector with components q_i where q_i 0 for i=1,...,k and q₁+...+q_k=1. We define i=1,...,k in the following way:

A note on the fundamental theorem of exact aggregation

If individual i's demands for a commodity are a function of prices, p, income M_i and a vector of attributes A_i, then aggregate demand is

This paper derives the necessary and sufficient conditions of f_i, F and a system of functions g_k(M₁,…,M_N,A₁,…,A_N) symmetric in the M's and A's such that F can be written in the form F(p, g, (M₁,…,M_n,A₁,…,A_N),…, g_n(M₁,…,M_n,A₁,… ,A_n)) for all values of its arguments.     

Cheap talk in games with incomplete information

The paper studies Bayesian games which are extended by adding pre-play communication. Let Γ be a Bayesian game with full support and with three or more players. The main result is that if players can send private messages to each other and make public announcements then every communication equilibrium outcome, q, that is rational (i.e., involves probabilities that are rational numbers) can be implemented in a sequential equilibrium of a cheap talk extension of Γ, provided that the following condition is satisfied: There exists a Bayesian Nash equilibrium s in Γ such that for each type t_i of each player i the expected payoff of t_i in q is larger than the expected payoff of t_i in s.     

Envy,wealth, and class hierarchies

A persion i is said to not envy another person j if he likes his own bundle of goods as well as he would like j's bundle. This paper explores the social structure defined by the non-envy relation, and relates it to the social structure defined by market values of bundles, or wealth.     

A recursion relation for the probability of the paradox of voting

For alternatives x_i, i = 1,…, m, giving rise to m! linear preference orderings of which one is selected independently by each of N voters, a recursion relation is developed which expresses the probability that x_i is the Condorcet winner when there are N voters in terms of the probability of this event when there are N ? 1 voters. Hence the probabilities of the paradox of voting when N is odd, and of Condorcet indecision when N is even may be obtained. The relationship holds for any set of probabilities, or culture, governing the selection of the preference orderings by the voters.     

Unequal inequalities. II

This paper analyzes properties of measures of inequality, applied to income inequalities but meaningful for practically any measure of dispersion in economics. We call n the number of persons, i the person's index, x_i person i's income, $\text{x}\text{= Σ(}\text{x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{n}\text{)}$ the average income, x the vector of the x_i's or income distribution, I(x) a real-valued function of x which is the measure (or index) of inequality.Part I (Sects. I–V), which appeared in the last issue of this journal, analyzed several structures or properties, and specific forms, of I. We distinguished several I's: the measures of inequality per person (or “absolute”) I^a, per pound (or “relative”) $\text{I}{}^{\mathrm{r}}\text{=}\text{I}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{x}$, and total nI^a. We presented several possible properties of inequality measures, such as: I = 0 if all x_i's are equal (“zero at equality”), I > 0 otherwise (“positivity out of equality”), symmetry of I for x (“impartiality”), $\text{((}\text{?I}\text{?x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{) ? (}\text{?I}\text{?x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{))(x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{? x}{}_{\mathrm{j}}\text{) > 0}$ for x_i ≠ x_j (“rectifiance” of the function I, or “transfers principle,” this being the strict form whereas the weak one is with sign ?), the fact that $\text{(}\text{?(}\text{x}\text{? I}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{)}\text{?}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{)}\text{(}\text{?(}\text{x}\text{? I}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{)}\text{?}{}_{\mathrm{j}}\text{)}$ does not depend upon x_k for k ≠ i,j (“welfare independence,” or, for short, “independence”). Rectifiance plus symmetry is Schur-convexity. Independence plus symmetry plus zero at equality implies that $\text{x}\text{≡}\text{x}\text{? I}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{= ?}{}^{\mathrm{?1}}\text{[(}\text{1}\text{n}\text{) Σ ?(x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{)]}$ where $\text{x}$ is the “equal equivalent income”; and we will show that, these three properties being satisfied, the following ones are equivalent to each other: positivity out of equality, rectifiance, quasi-convexity, ?'s concavity.Part I largely focused on the study of six related specific measures of inequality, which in particular possess all the above properties: ?, α, and Ξ being positive parameters, they are $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{=}\text{x}\text{+ξ ? [(}\text{1}\text{n}\text{∑ (x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{+ ξ)}{}^{\mathrm{1?epsi;}}\text{]}{}^{\mathrm{<mtext>1</mtext><mtext>1</mtext><mtext>??</mtext>}}$, $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{=}\text{x}\text{+ξ ? ∏ (x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{+ ξ)}{}^{\mathrm{<mtext>1</mtext><mtext>n</mtext>}}$, $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{r}}\text{=}\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{x}$, I_r=I_c^r for ξ=O, $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{r}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}\text{=}\text{x}\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{r}}\text{=I}{}_{\mathrm{c}}{}^{\mathrm{a}}$ for ξ=, $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{l}}\text{=(}\text{1}\text{α}\text{)}\text{log}\text{[(}\text{1}\text{n}\text{) ∑ eα·(x?x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{)]}$ and $\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{l}}{}^{\mathrm{r}}\text{=}\text{I}{}_{\mathrm{l}}\text{x}$. Lower indices c, r, l respectively stand for “centrist,” “rightist,” and “leftist” measures of inequality. I_r and I_l are invariant under respectively equiproportional variation in, or equal addition to, all incomes; measures which have the first of these two properties are said to be “intensive.”We now consider different and more general measures, and other properties. We first reconcile the last two properties by dropping the “indepencence” one (Section VI.). Then, we analyze another mildly equalitarian property, the “principle of diminishing transfers” (Section VII). Section VIII turns to the relations between inequality measures and Lorenz and concentration curves. We then consider the effect on inequality of additions of incomes, and we analyze the properties of “diminishing equality” (Section IX). The effect of unions of populations is the topic of Section X. Finally, the last section (XI) presents the more general relations between the various structural properties of inequality measures.¹     

Matching for teams

We are given a list of tasks Z and a population divided into several groups X _j of equal size. Performing one task z requires constituting a team with exactly one member x _j from every group. There is a cost (or reward) for participation: if type x _j chooses task z, he receives p _j (z); utilities are quasi-linear. One seeks an equilibrium price, that is, a price system that distributes all the agents into distinct teams. We prove existence of equilibria and fully characterize them as solutions to some convex optimization problems. The main mathematical tools are convex duality and mass transportation theory. Uniqueness and purity of equilibria are discussed. We will also give an alternative linear-programming formulation as in the recent work of Chiappori et al. (Econ Theory, to appear).     

Conservative belief and rationality

Playersʼ beliefs may be incompatible, in the sense that player i can assign probability 1 to an event E to which player j assigns probability 0. One way to block incompatibility is to assume a common prior. We consider here a different approach: we require playersʼ beliefs to be conservative, in the sense that all players must ascribe the actual world positive probability. We show that common conservative belief of rationality (CCBR) characterizes strategies in the support of a subjective correlated equilibrium where all playersʼ beliefs have common support. We also define a notion of strong rationalizability, and show that it is characterized by CCBR.     

On choosing which game to play when ignorant of the rules

This paper suggests a theory of choice among strategic situations when the rules of play are not properly specified. We take the view that a “strategic situation” is adequately described by a TU game since it specifies what is feasible for each coalition but is silent on the procedures that are used to allocate the surplus. We model the choice problem facing a decision maker (DM) as having to choose from finitely many “actions”. The known “consequence” of the ith action is a coalition from game f _i over a fixed set of players \(N_i\cup\{d\}\) (where d stands for the DM). Axioms are imposed on her choice as the list of consequences (f ₁,..., f _m ) from the m actions varies. We characterize choice rules that are based on marginal contributions of the DM in general and on the Shapley Value in particular.     

ON ADDITIVE METHODS TO SHARE JOINT COSTS*

The Shapley value theory is extended to cost functions with multiple outputs (or to production functions with multiple inputs) where each output is demanded by a different agent and the level of demand varies. Beyond the Additivity and Dummy axioms (Shapley's original axioms) we insist that the cost-share of an agent should not decrease when she increases her demand (Demand Monotonicity). This property rules out the Aumann-Shapley pricing formula, as well as any method charging average cost for homogeneous goods. We characterize the class of cost sharing methods satisfying Additivity, Dummy, Demand Monotonicity and Cross Monotonicity. The last says that when outputs i and j are cost complements (resp-cost substitutes) the cost share of i is non decreasing (resp-non increasing) in the demand of j. Two prominent methods in the class are the Shapley-Shubik method (i.e. the Shapley value of the Stand Alone cost game) and serial cost sharing (which extends to multiple goods a formula due to Moulin and Shenker). They are characterized respectively by a lower bound and by an upper bound on individual cost shares.     

Axiomatic foundations of Hicksian measures of welfare change

The aggregate Hicksian measures Σλ_iEV_i and Σλ_iCV_i are characterized by three simple properties. One property concerns the ranking of two states. The measures are Paretian. A second property expresses the postulate that welfare changes are to be evaluated in money. The third one deals with redistributions of incomes. Distributional considerations are taken into account by employing variable distributional weights λ_i.     

Zero-sum condition: A necessary and sufficient condition for a transitive voting system

A simple and quick way to ascertain whether or not any given majority voting system can always produce a transitive social preference orderings without imposing any restriction on the distribution of diverse individual preference orderings is to examine whether all individual voting (preference) vectors satisfy the Addition Rule or not. This conclusion was obtained by first reformulating the voting mechanism into that of a linear mapping from T^m defined by q = Σp_i. It was found that the subset P of T that can accommodate all possible individual preference ordering profiles and such that every sum vector q = Σ p_i of its member vectors p_i is contained in T can be expressed as P = {p: p∈ T, s(p) = 0}. It was also pointed out that this is equivalent to the requirement that all individual preference (voting) functions must satisfy the Addition Rule. Finally, Borda's Rule and Saposnik's Contributive Rule were shown to be examples of transitive voting rules which satisfy these necessary and sufficient conditions.     

An efficiency theorem for incompletely known preferences

There are n agents who have von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions on a finite set of alternatives A. Each agent i's utility function is known to lie in the nonempty, convex, relatively open set Ui. Suppose L is a lottery on A that is undominated, meaning that there is no other lottery that is guaranteed to Pareto dominate L no matter what the true utility functions are. Then, there exist utility functions ui∈Ui for which L is Pareto efficient. This result includes the ordinal efficiency welfare theorem as a special case.     

Core allocations and the dimension of the cone of efficiency price vectors

Let (R₁,…,R_k) be an arbitrary partition of the grand coalition in an atomless exchange economy with k “large enough.” We prove that an optimal allocation x belongs to the core if and only if x cannot be improved upon by any coalition that includes at least one of the R_i's. K is “large enough” if k ? r + 1, where r is the linear dimension of the cone P of the efficiency price vectors for x. Recall that it is always true that r ? n, when n is the number of commodities in the market, and that under differentiability and interiority r = 1; thus k can be chosen to be 2 (i.e., for any coalition R, an allocation x belongs to the core of the market if and only if x is not blocked by any coalition that either contains R or contains its complement).     

Reinterpreting mixed strategy equilibria: a unification of the classical and Bayesian views

We provide a new interpretation of mixed strategy equilibria that incorporates both von Neumann and Morgenstern's classical concealment role of mixing, as well as the more recent Bayesian view originating with Harsanyi. For any two-person game, G, we consider an incomplete information game, in which each player's type is the probability he assigns to the event that his mixed strategy in G is “found out” by his opponent. We show that, generically, any regular equilibrium of G can be approximated by an equilibrium of in which almost every type of each player is strictly optimizing. This leads us to interpret i's equilibrium mixed strategy in G as a combination of deliberate randomization by i together with uncertainty on j's part about which randomization i will employ. We also show that such randomization is not unusual: for example, i's randomization is nondegenerate whenever the support of an equilibrium contains cyclic best replies.     

Pure exchange equilibrium of dynamic economic models

This paper studies competitive equilibrium over time of a one good model in which the agents are members of a population which grows at a constant rate. Each agent lives for n periods and in the i-th period of his life receives an endowment of e_i units of goods. Goods can neither be produced nor stored. The model is thus the n-period generalization of the two- and three-period models studied by Samuelson in [4]. We seek to ascertain the structure of the time paths of consumption in these models. Our results can be summarized roughly as follows: In general, there will exist two kinds of steady state paths, (i) golden rule paths in which the rate of interest equals the growth rate of population and (ii) “balanced” paths in which the aggregate assets or indebtedness of the society as a whole is zero (a fundamental fact about dynamic models is that it is possible for aggregate debt not to equal aggregate credit as it must in the static case). A model is termed classical if in the golden rule state aggregate assets are negative (or debt positive) and Samuelson (following [4]) in the opposite case. It is conjectured that the golden rule program is globally stable in the classical case and the balanced program is stable in the Samuelson case. This is established for the special case n = 2.