Intro Prefs & Voting Electoral comp. Voter Turnout Agency GIP SIP Rent seeking Partisans. 7. Special-interest politics
|
|
- Lillian Stanley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 7. Special-interest politics
2 Motivation Why do some groups in society receive more generous support than other (e.g. farmers)? Homogeneity in interests which allows more efficient organization of lobby group Group members might be less ideologically biased Geographic clustering: Overrepresentation in democratic system (rural areas) We focus on bullet points 1 (lobbying through contributions) and 2 (electoral competition)
3 A model of local public goods We develop our arguments by means of a simple public good model We assume that governments can target payments (local public goods) to specific interest groups Expenditures are financed from a pool of tax revenues
4 A model of local public goods Consider a society with J distinct groups of identical individuals Group J = 1,..., J has size (mass) N J, J NJ = N, where N is the size of the population Individuals in group J have the following quasi-linear preferences w J = c J + H(g J ), (90) where c J captures consumption of private goods and g J denotes per capita supply of a locally provided good.
5 A model of local public goods The increasing and concave function H( ), with H(0) = 0, is defined over a good that only benefits members of that particular group. It must be provided in an equal amount per capita Income in each group is identical, y J = y One unit of income can be converted into any of the J publicly provided goods at no costs Taxation is lump sum to avoid further distortions in the model
6 Normative benchmark We derive the utilitarian optimum by maximizing the Benthamite welfare function N J N w J (91) J subject to the resource constraint N J (g J + c J ) = Ny (92) J As the marginal social cost of the publicly provided good is unity by assumption, the optimal vector g g J implies that the average marginal benefit has to be unity: H g (g ) 1 = 0. We denote aggregate spending for this benchmark vector as G = Ng.
7 Normative benchmark It is straightforward to see that group-specific lump-sum taxes could achieve this benchmark allocation so that c J = y τ J = y g J However, this type of tax instrument might not be available in many real world scenarios Rather, governments have to finance group-specific expenditures from a common pool of tax revenues This would generate incentives to influence the government in one s own favor as the benefits to a particular group clearly exceed the costs that have to be borne by that group More precisely, there is a common lump-sum tax for all groups such that the budget constraint reads Nτ = J NJ g J G, where G is aggregate expenditure.
8 The basic common pool problem Now assume that each group decides freely on the provision of each publicly provided good whereas the tax rate is residually determined Utility of an individual from group J can be written as W J (g) = y τ + H(g J ) = y I g I NI N + H(gJ ). (93) Every group J maximizes (93) taking expenditures by all other groups as given which leads to overexpenditure in each group. Equilibrium spending now satisfies H g (g J,D ) = NJ N. (94)
9 The basic common pool problem As the right-hand side of (94) is negative each group demands too much of the publicly provided good compared to the social optimum Furthermore, smaller groups "overdemand" to a larger extent Intuition: Each group only internalizes the fraction N J /N of the social marginal cost of higher taxes The root of the problem lies in the institutional framework of decentralized spending and determining the tax rate residually after the spending decisions have been made Practically, full decentralization of financing may not be achievable. And even if it could be enforced, the incentive remains for each group to influence the decision makers to finance a higher share of publicly provided goods for them
10 Lobbying Policy decisions centralized in the hands of a semibenevolent government Government can be influenced via contributions of organized lobby groups Obviously, there is a free rider problem as all members of the group benefit irrespective of whether they have contributed We circumvent the difficult field of coalition formation and assume that an exogenous fraction L is successful in doing so
11 Lobbying We study a two-stage policy game: 1 Every lobby non-cooperatively and simultaneously sets a binding C J (g) as to maximize net welfare of its members: N J (W J (g) C J (g)) 2 The government sets g so as to maximize a weighted sum of social welfare and contributions: W (g) = η J N J W J (g) + (1 η) J L N J C J (g), (95) where 0 η 1 is a measure of the government s benevolence. We restrict the analysis to truthful contribution schedules satisfying C J (g) = max[w J (g) b J, 0], where b J is a constant the lobby sets optimally.
12 Lobbying Political equilibrium: Note that truthful strategies must be jointly Pareto optimal for the government and all lobbies The equilibrium vector g therefore maximizes the sum of the net welfare of the organized lobbies N J (W J (g) C J (g)) J L and the government objective W (g) In particular, g is chosen to maximize η N J W J (g) + N J W J (g). (96) J / L J L
13 Lobbying Political equilibrium cont d: In other words, the equilibrium coincides with a planning problem where the non-organized groups are underweighted according to the degree of government benevolence. The first-order conditions to the maximization problem (96) define the equilibrium allocation: H g (g J,L ) 1 = (1 λ L )(1 η) 0, J L H g (g J,L ) 1 = λ L (1 η)/η 0, J / L, (97) where 0 λ L = J L NJ N 1 is the share of the population organized in a lobby.
14 Lobbying Several results are apparent from (97): 1 The lobbying equilibrium can be optimal if the government is perfectly benevolent (η = 1) if no groups seek for influencing activities (λ L = 0) if more surprisingly all groups are organized in lobbies, i.e. λ L = 1 2 Public consumption is generally misallocated, however. The degree of misallocation decreases in η and in λ L. 3 There is no presumption of aggregate overspending as lobby groups get more at the expense of unorganized groups.
15 Electoral competition Special interest politics might also come in another form than lobbying. Office-seeking politicians might have an incentive to target special groups in society before elections Question: Which groups have the greatest influence on policy outcome? We address this question by applying the probabilistic voting model
16 Electoral competition Two competing candidates P = A, B maximize their probability of winning the elections by making binding promises to interest groups ex ante, g A and g B They take into account which groups are more likely to be swayed when choosing their announcements Parties differ with respect to "ideology"
17 Electoral competition Voter i of group J has the following utility function: w ij = κ J W J (g) + (σ ij + δ)d B, (98) where D B takes the value of one if party B wins the election and zero otherwise. Furthermore, σ ij is an individual-specific parameter (σ ij > (<)0 implies a bias in favor of (against) party B), κ J is a group-specific parameter, and δ is a random variable capturing the party preferences of the whole population. Moreover, groups also differ in the strength of their ideological motives: κ J
18 Electoral competition The swing voter in group J is defined by σ J (g A, g B, δ) κ J [W J (g A ) W J (g B )] δ. (99)
19 Electoral competition Political equilibrium: The two parties simultaneously and non-cooperatively announce their platforms so as to maximize the probability of winning the election. Party A s vote share can be expressed as π A = J N J [ N φj σ J (g A, g B, δ) + 1 ] 2φ J. (100)
20 Electoral competition Hence, party A s probability of winning the election results as p A = prob[π A 0.5] = 0.5+ ψ φ [ J N J [ ] ] N φj κ J W J (g A ) W J (g B ), (101) where φ N J N φj is the average density of party bias across groups.
21 Electoral competition As both parties face the same budget constraint, we get a convergence result: g A = g B By the definition of the swing voter, this implies that σ J (g A, g B, δ) = δ As the expected value of δ is zero, both parties try to get the votes of the ideologically neutral swing voters in each group
22 Electoral competition Against this background, the first-order conditions can be written as N J N φ J φ κj H g (g J ) NJ N I φ I N N φ κi = 0. (102) I Intuitively, parties compete for the same voters as mentioned above by buying electoral support. As a result, the distribution of voters preferences alone decides the unique equilibrium election outcome.
23 Electoral competition Rewriting (102) allows us to characterize equilibrium spending g E as H g (g J,E ) 1 = I NI N φi κ I φ J κ J φ J κ J. (103) Again, the right-hand side determines deviations from the utilitarian optimum.
24 Electoral competition We derive a number of insights: 1 Electoral competition installs the utilitarian optimum g E = g if the ideological bias is identical across groups such that φ J and κ J coincide for all J 2 The term φ J κ J summarizes the clout of a specific group J. If this term is higher than the weighted average of all groups, the right-hand side of (103) becomes negative implying that g J,E > g 3 Group size plays no role in determining political power
25 Lobbying and elections Motivation: Lobbying without elections can rather be interpreted as bribes to politicians In this section, we combine the lobbying model with the elections model to motivate official campaign contributions What is the role of campaign contributions in representative democracies?
26 Lobbying and elections We use a simplified version of the probabilistic voting model: All groups are of equal size normalized to unity such that N J N = 1 J We place the same weight on economic outcome and ideology, also normalized to unity (i.e. κ J = 1)
27 Lobbying and elections Voters in group J possess preferences of the following kind w ij = W J (g) + (σ ij + δ)d B, (104) but now δ is driven by δ = δ + h(c B C A ). Thus, party B s average popularity has two components now: δ and contributions C P
28 Lobbying and elections Following the same logic as in the basic probabilistic voting model, we can determine the swing voter as σ J = W J (g A ) W J (g B ) + h(c A C B ) δ. (105) Campaign spending now influences the identity of the swing voter! The probability that party A wins the election is given by [ [ 1 p A = 0.5+ψ J J φ J φ ( W J (g A ) W J (g B )) ] ] + h(c A C B ). (106)
29 Lobbying and elections A subset L is organized in lobbies so that λ L describes the share of the "organized" population. Lobby J maximizes p A W J (g A ) + (1 p A )W J (g B ) (C J ) 2 /2, (107) where C J = CB J + CJ A is the per member campaign contribution by lobby J to both parties. As each group owns the share 1/J of the population, total contributions received by party P are C P = 1 J CP J. (108) J L
30 Lobbying and elections The timing of the game is as follows: 1 Parties simultaneously announce their policy platforms 2 All lobbies simultaneously set their campaign contributions 3 Elections are held. NOTE: In contrast to the previous section, stages (1) and (2) are reversed in this model.
31 Lobbying and elections Equilibrium: The problem is solved by backward induction. Since the electoral outcome at stage (3) has already been discussed, we can directly jump to the lobby maximization problem for given policy platforms. Maximizing (107) with respect to CA J and CJ B, subject to (106), yields C J A = Max [ 0, hψ C J B = Min ] J (W J (g A ) W J (g B )) [ 0, hψ J (W J (g A ) W J (g B )) ]. Each lobby only campaigns in favor of one party at most (109)
32 Lobbying and elections Summing this expression across all lobbies in L, we get C A C B = hψ ( ) J 2 W J (g A ) W J (g B ). (110) J L This equation states that campaign contributions go to the party that is more successful in pleasing the lobbies.
33 Lobbying and elections We next turn to the party optimization problem. Here maximizing the vote share and the probability of winning yield the same result. By (106), (107) and (110), party A s objective function can then be written as [ max ψ φ J J φ [W J (g A ) W J (g B )] + γ ] [W J (g A ) W J (g B )], J J L (111) where γ = ψh 2 /J > 0 is an extra weight on the lobbies utility related to how effectively campaign spending influences the voters. Since party B solves the same problem, we observe convergence in announcements such that g A = g B, which then implies zero campaign spending.
34 Lobbying and elections However, this does not mean that the presence of lobbies is irrelevant for the equilibrium outcome. Taking the first-order conditions of problem (111) and rearranging allows us to determine the allocation as follows: H g (g J ) 1 = φ [1 φ J φj + γφ H g (g J ) 1 = φ φ J [ 1 φj φ + γλ L ] φ γ(1 λ L) J L ] J / L. (112)
35 Lobbying and elections Conclusions: g J is overprovided if φ J is larger than φ If group J is organized as a lobby, there is also overprovision, and the lobbying effect is stronger the higher is γ Also, a smaller fraction among the groups (λ L ) increases the amount of overprovision for the organized groups, but decreases the underprovision for the unorganized groups Bottomline: The lobbying and probabilistic voting models complement each other.
36 Lobbying à la Grossman and Helpman Idea: Politicians have incomplete information and can thus be influenced/ consulted by special interest groups Assumptions: Lobbying is potentially informative, i.e. it allows politicians to make better policy decisions Policy maker cannot easily verify the lobbyists claims Objectives of politicians and lobbies are not perfectly matched
37 Lobbying à la Grossman and Helpman Two questions: 1 What statements will be persuasive? 2 What can a lobby do to enhance credibility?
38 Costless lobbying One lobby We consider costless lobbying first There is only one lobby that has information relevant to the policymaker s decision Welfare of policymaker is given by G(p, θ) = (p θ) 2, where p is a policy variable (i.e. desire to be reelected, partisan preferences) and θ captures the true state of the world (which only the lobby knows). We note that the value of this function is maximized when p = θ.
39 Costless lobbying One lobby The interest group s (or similarly the lobbyist s) preferences are given by U(p, θ) = (p (θ + δ)) 2 The lobby has an ideal policy of p = θ + δ in state of the world θ Divergence among politicians and individuals is driven by δ (bias in the group s preferences)
40 Costless lobbying One lobby For simplicity, we assume only two states of the world, θ L and θ H Policymaker sets p = θ when the lobbying group reveals the true state of the world She sets p = E θ when she remains uncertain about the true state (where θ should be interpreted as a random variable) Policymaker takes the lobbyist s claims at face value and then investigates the incentives of the lobbyist
41 Costless lobbying One lobby U L H L H θ L θ L +δ θ H θ H +δ p Figure 30: One lobby Two states of the world
42 Costless lobbying One lobby The left curve LL represents welfare as a function of the chosen policy variable p if the state of the world is θ L Similarly, HH describes welfare if θ H is realized A trusting policymaker will implement p = θ L if the lobby reports θ L as the true state (similarly for θ H ) this is not the welfare maximizing policy for the lobby as long as δ 0! Will the lobbyist reveal the correct information?
43 Costless lobbying One lobby Results: If the true state is θ H then the lobbyist has no incentive to misrepresent the facts. This is because by claiming that the true state is θ L the utility will always be lower If the true state is θ L then the lobbyist has no incentive to misrepresent the facts if (θ L + δ) θ L θ H (θ L + δ), which is the same as if δ θ H θ L 2 Thus, when this condition is satisfied there exists an equilibrium with informative lobbying
44 Costless lobbying One lobby If this condition is not satisfied that is when δ > θ H θ L 2 ) then the lobbyist s report lacks credibility The politician knows that the lobbyist has an incentive to announce the state θ H no matter what the true state happened to be The politician ignores the report prepared by the lobby and sets the policy p = θ H+θ L 2, which matches her prior about the mean value of θ
45 Costless lobbying One lobby When the inequality condition is fulfilled: There is also another outcome known as a "babbling equilibrium" In this scenario, the policymaker generally distrusts the interest group and sets p = θ H+θ L 2, independently of what the interest group says Interest group has no incentive to lobby
46 Costly lobbying One lobby Preferences of the interest group are now depicted by U = (p (θ + δ)) 2 l, where l is new and represents the cost of lobbying If the group does note choose to lobby, then l = 0, otherwise l = l f > 0 The objective function of the policymaker remains the same G(p, θ) = (p θ) 2.
47 Costly lobbying One lobby Timing of the lobbying game is as follows: 1 The interest group learns the true value of θ 2 It decides whether to bear the cost l f 3 The policymaker updates her beliefs based on the lobby s report 4 The policymaker chooses the policy level to maximize her expected utility
48 Costly lobbying One lobby When l f = 0, the problem is identical to the previous section For θ H, there is no risk of false reporting But when the state is θ L the group may be tempted to misrepresent its case If there are costs for lobbying, the policymaker now takes a group s willingness to lobby to imply that θ = θ H and a failure to lobby to means that θ = θ L Paradoxically, the group might fare better with costly lobbying as the investment (to lobby) can serve as a means to gain credibility
49 Costly lobbying One lobby Let s solve the equilibrium: The group is willing to pay the lobbying cost in state θ H if and only if (θ H (θ H + δ)) 2 l f (θ L (θ H + δ)) 2, or δ 2 l f (θ L (θ H + δ)) 2 l f (θ H θ L )(2δ + θ H θ L ) k 1.
50 Costly lobbying One lobby The group must also prefer to refrain from lobbying when the state is θ L (which we initially assumed). The condition for this is: (θ L (θ L + δ)) 2 (θ H (θ L + δ)) 2 l f, or δ 2 (θ H (θ L + δ)) 2 l f, or l f (θ H θ L )(2δ θ H + θ L ) k 2. Since k 1 > k 2 there is a range of lobbying costs for which both conditions are satisfied
51 Costly lobbying One lobby Welfare implications I: Policymaker Recall that if δ > θ H θ L 2, then the policymaker sets p = θ H+θ L 2, which is not her ideal point When l f lies between k 1 and k 2, the costly lobbying allows the policymaker to infer the true value of θ, in which case she achieves her ideal policy in both states of the world. This is better than in the no-cost case when the politician sometimes gets distorted information
52 Costly lobbying One lobby Welfare implications II: Interest group If δ > θ H θ L 2, then their utility in the no-cost case is U l=0 = ( θ H+θ L 2 (θ H + δ)) 2 + ( θ H+θ L 2 (θ L + δ)) 2. 2 In the case of positive costs, she achieves δ 2 l f in state θ H and δ 2 in state θ L so U l>0 = δ 2 l f 2 Positive lobbying costs may enhance utility for interest groups: U l>0 > U l=0 if l f < (θ H θ L ) 2 2
53 Costly lobbying One lobby Intuition: Policymaker knows that the costs reduce the incentives to falsely report the low state of the world θ L This implies that she picks p = θ H+θ L 2 less frequently As p = θ H+θ L 2 is a bad policy from the interest group s point of view it may be better off when there are costs of lobbying.
54 References Grossman, G.M. and E. Helpman (2001), Special Interest Politics, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Chapter 4.1 and 5.1
Intro Prefs & Voting Electoral comp. Political Economics. Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich. Summer term / 37
1 / 37 Political Economics Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich Summer term 2010 4 / 37 Table of contents 1 Introduction(MG) 2 Preferences and voting (MG) 3 Voter turnout (MG) 4 Electoral competition (SÜ)
More informationPolitical Economy of Institutions and Development. Lectures 2 and 3: Static Voting Models
14.773 Political Economy of Institutions and Development. Lectures 2 and 3: Static Voting Models Daron Acemoglu MIT February 7 and 12, 2013. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Political Economy Lectures 2 and 3 February
More informationUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND Department of Economics Economics 754 Topics in Political Economy Fall 2005 Allan Drazen. Exercise Set I
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND Department of Economics Economics 754 Topics in Political Economy Fall 005 Allan Drazen Exercise Set I The first four exercises are review of what we did in class on 8/31. The next
More information14.770: Introduction to Political Economy Lectures 1 and 2: Collective Choice and Voting
14.770: Introduction to Political Economy Lectures 1 and 2: Collective Choice and Voting Daron Acemoglu MIT September 6 and 11, 2017. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Political Economy Lectures 1 and 2 September 6
More informationAdvanced Macroeconomics
Advanced Macroeconomics The Ramsey Model Marcin Kolasa Warsaw School of Economics Marcin Kolasa (WSE) Ad. Macro - Ramsey model 1 / 30 Introduction Authors: Frank Ramsey (1928), David Cass (1965) and Tjalling
More informationGame theory lecture 4. September 24, 2012
September 24, 2012 Finding Nash equilibrium Best-response or best-reply functions. We introduced Nash-equilibrium as a profile of actions (an action for each player) such that no player has an incentive
More informationPolitical Cycles and Stock Returns. Pietro Veronesi
Political Cycles and Stock Returns Ľuboš Pástor and Pietro Veronesi University of Chicago, National Bank of Slovakia, NBER, CEPR University of Chicago, NBER, CEPR Average Excess Stock Market Returns 30
More informationEstimating Dynamic Games of Electoral Competition to Evaluate Term Limits in U.S. Gubernatorial Elections: Online Appendix
Estimating Dynamic Games of Electoral Competition to Evaluate Term Limits in U.S. Gubernatorial Elections: Online ppendix Holger Sieg University of Pennsylvania and NBER Chamna Yoon Baruch College I. States
More informationPolitical Economy of Transparency
Political Economy of Transparency Raphael Galvão University of Pennsylvania rgalvao@sas.upenn.edu November 20, 2017 Abstract This paper develops a model where short-term reputation concerns guide the public
More informationEC721B FINAL EXAMINATION SOLUTIONS, FALL 2018
EC721B FINAL EXAMINATION SOLUTIONS, FALL 2018 1. (5*5=25 marks) Do you agree, disagree either fully or partially with the following statements? Briefly (in a few sentences and/or short model sketch/citations)
More informationMicroeconomic Theory (501b) Problem Set 10. Auctions and Moral Hazard Suggested Solution: Tibor Heumann
Dirk Bergemann Department of Economics Yale University Microeconomic Theory (50b) Problem Set 0. Auctions and Moral Hazard Suggested Solution: Tibor Heumann 4/5/4 This problem set is due on Tuesday, 4//4..
More informationPositive Models of Private Provision of Public Goods: A Static Model. (Bergstrom, Blume and Varian 1986)
Positive Models of Private Provision of Public Goods: A Static Model (Bergstrom, Blume and Varian 1986) Public goods will in general be under-supplied by voluntary contributions. Still, voluntary contributions
More informationDeceptive Advertising with Rational Buyers
Deceptive Advertising with Rational Buyers September 6, 016 ONLINE APPENDIX In this Appendix we present in full additional results and extensions which are only mentioned in the paper. In the exposition
More information5. Externalities and Public Goods. Externalities. Public Goods types. Public Goods
5. Externalities and Public Goods 5. Externalities and Public Goods Externalities Welfare properties of Walrasian Equilibria rely on the hidden assumption of private goods: the consumption of the good
More informationEconS Microeconomic Theory II Homework #9 - Answer key
EconS 503 - Microeconomic Theory II Homework #9 - Answer key 1. WEAs with market power. Consider an exchange economy with two consumers, A and B, whose utility functions are u A (x A 1 ; x A 2 ) = x A
More informationEconomic Policies of Heterogeneous Politicians
Economic Policies of Heterogeneous Politicians ODILON CÂMARA Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California January 27, 2012 Abstract This paper studies how a politician s preferences and
More information5. Externalities and Public Goods
5. Externalities and Public Goods Welfare properties of Walrasian Equilibria rely on the hidden assumption of private goods: the consumption of the good by one person has no effect on other people s utility,
More informationEconomic Coercion in Public Finance
Economic Coercion in Public Finance Beat Hintermann, University of Basel Thomas F. Rutherford, University of Wisconsin at Madison June 20, 2013 Draft document please do not cite Abstract We develop a theory
More informationDynamic Common Agency
Dynamic Common Agency Dirk Bergemann Juuso Välimäki January 2001 Abstract A general model of dynamic common agency with symmetric information is considered. The set of truthful Markov perfect equilibrium
More informationDefinitions and Proofs
Giving Advice vs. Making Decisions: Transparency, Information, and Delegation Online Appendix A Definitions and Proofs A. The Informational Environment The set of states of nature is denoted by = [, ],
More informationPopulism, Partisanship, and the Funding of Political Campaigns
Populism, Partisanship, and the Funding of Political Campaigns Tilman Klumpp University of Alberta October 2015 Abstract We define populism as a politician s effort to appeal to a large group of voters
More informationEconS Advanced Microeconomics II Handout on Mechanism Design
EconS 503 - Advanced Microeconomics II Handout on Mechanism Design 1. Public Good Provision Imagine that you and your colleagues want to buy a co ee machine for your o ce. Suppose that some of you may
More informationEC476 Contracts and Organizations, Part III: Lecture 2
EC476 Contracts and Organizations, Part III: Lecture 2 Leonardo Felli 32L.G.06 19 January 2015 Moral Hazard: Consider the contractual relationship between two agents (a principal and an agent) The principal
More informationAPPENDIX Should the Private Sector Provide Public Capital?
APPENIX Should the Private Sector Provide Public Capital? Santanu Chatterjee epartment of Economics Terry College of Business University of eorgia Appendix A The appendix describes the optimization problem
More informationRedistributive Taxation in a Partial-Insurance Economy
Redistributive Taxation in a Partial-Insurance Economy Jonathan Heathcote Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and CEPR Kjetil Storesletten Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and CEPR Gianluca Violante
More informationAppendix of Homophily in Peer Groups The Costly Information Case
Appendix of Homophily in Peer Groups The Costly Information Case Mariagiovanna Baccara Leeat Yariv August 19, 2012 1 Introduction In this Appendix we study the information sharing application analyzed
More informationPolitical Economy of Institutions and Development: Problem Set 1. Due Date: Thursday, February 23, in class.
Political Economy of Institutions and Development: 14.773 Problem Set 1 Due Date: Thursday, February 23, in class. Answer Questions 1-3. handed in. The other two questions are for practice and are not
More informationWelfare Analysis in Partial Equilibrium.
Welfare Analysis in Partial Equilibrium. Social welfare function: assigns social welfare value (real number) to each profile of utility levels (u 1,u 2,...u I ): W (u 1,u 2,...u I ) (Utilitarian welfare).
More informationPolitical Economy of Institutions and Development. Lecture 8. Institutional Change and Democratization
14.773 Political Economy of Institutions and Development. Lecture 8. Institutional Change and Democratization Daron Acemoglu MIT March 5, 2013. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Political Economy Lecture 8 March 5,
More informationOn the level of public good provision in games of redistributive politics
On the level of public good provision in games of redistributive politics Benoit S Y Crutzen and Nicolas Sahuguet y September 20 Abstract This paper studies an electoral competition game between two candidates,
More informationAdvanced Macroeconomics
Advanced Macroeconomics The Ramsey Model Micha l Brzoza-Brzezina/Marcin Kolasa Warsaw School of Economics Micha l Brzoza-Brzezina/Marcin Kolasa (WSE) Ad. Macro - Ramsey model 1 / 47 Introduction Authors:
More informationSGZ Macro Week 3, Lecture 2: Suboptimal Equilibria. SGZ 2008 Macro Week 3, Day 1 Lecture 2
SGZ Macro Week 3, : Suboptimal Equilibria 1 Basic Points Effects of shocks can be magnified (damped) in suboptimal economies Multiple equilibria (stationary states, dynamic paths) in suboptimal economies
More informationLecture Notes Part 7: Systems of Equations
17.874 Lecture Notes Part 7: Systems of Equations 7. Systems of Equations Many important social science problems are more structured than a single relationship or function. Markets, game theoretic models,
More informationGame Theory: Spring 2017
Game Theory: Spring 2017 Ulle Endriss Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam Ulle Endriss 1 Plan for Today In this second lecture on mechanism design we are going to generalise
More informationMonetary Economics: Solutions Problem Set 1
Monetary Economics: Solutions Problem Set 1 December 14, 2006 Exercise 1 A Households Households maximise their intertemporal utility function by optimally choosing consumption, savings, and the mix of
More informationDesign Patent Damages under Sequential Innovation
Design Patent Damages under Sequential Innovation Yongmin Chen and David Sappington University of Colorado and University of Florida February 2016 1 / 32 1. Introduction Patent policy: patent protection
More informationCostly Voting: Voter Composition and Turnout
Costly Voting: Voter Composition and Turnout Jannet Chang Department of Economics, Virginia Tech October, 004 Abstract Given voting is costly, we analyze under what conditions rational agents vote and
More informationDo Government Audits Reduce Corruption? Estimating the Impacts of Exposing Corrupt Politicians
Do Government Audits Reduce Corruption? Estimating the Impacts of Exposing Corrupt Politicians Avis, Ferraz, Finan (JPE 2018) Presented by César Garro-Marín and Masyhur Hilmy December 6, 2018 Cesar and
More informationEC487 Advanced Microeconomics, Part I: Lecture 5
EC487 Advanced Microeconomics, Part I: Lecture 5 Leonardo Felli 32L.LG.04 27 October, 207 Pareto Efficient Allocation Recall the following result: Result An allocation x is Pareto-efficient if and only
More informationComprehensive Exam. Macro Spring 2014 Retake. August 22, 2014
Comprehensive Exam Macro Spring 2014 Retake August 22, 2014 You have a total of 180 minutes to complete the exam. If a question seems ambiguous, state why, sharpen it up and answer the sharpened-up question.
More informationA Survey of Equilibrium Analysis in Spatial Models of Elections
A Survey of Equilibrium Analysis in Spatial Models of Elections John Duggan Department of Political Science and Department of Economics University of Rochester July 21, 2005 1 Introduction Elections, as
More informationProper Welfare Weights for Social Optimization Problems
Proper Welfare Weights for Social Optimization Problems Alexis Anagnostopoulos (Stony Brook University) Eva Cárceles-Poveda (Stony Brook University) Yair Tauman (IDC and Stony Brook University) June 24th
More informationSignal Extraction in Economics
Signal Extraction in Economics Tamura, Masaoki Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University July 17, 2013 1 / 51 Introduction 2 / 51 I study four types of economic environments in which economic
More informationSimple New Keynesian Model without Capital
Simple New Keynesian Model without Capital Lawrence J. Christiano January 5, 2018 Objective Review the foundations of the basic New Keynesian model without capital. Clarify the role of money supply/demand.
More informationFairness and Redistribution: Response
Fairness and Redistribution: Response By ALBERTO ALESINA, GEORGE-MARIOS ANGELETOS, AND GUIDO COZZI This paper responds to the comment of Di Tella and Dubra (211). We first clarify that the model of Alesina
More informationThe Ramsey Model. (Lecture Note, Advanced Macroeconomics, Thomas Steger, SS 2013)
The Ramsey Model (Lecture Note, Advanced Macroeconomics, Thomas Steger, SS 213) 1 Introduction The Ramsey model (or neoclassical growth model) is one of the prototype models in dynamic macroeconomics.
More informationMartin Gregor IES, Charles University. Abstract
On the strategic non-complementarity of complements Martin Gregor IES, Charles University Abstract This paper examines the equilibrium provision of a public good if the private monetary contributions of
More informationDiscussion Paper Series
INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO AUTÓNOMO DE MÉXICO CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN ECONÓMICA Discussion Paper Series Would Rational Voters Acquire Costly Information? César Martinelli Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México
More informationGame Theory Fall 2003
Game Theory Fall 2003 Problem Set 1 [1] In this problem (see FT Ex. 1.1) you are asked to play with arbitrary 2 2 games just to get used to the idea of equilibrium computation. Specifically, consider the
More informationEconomics 2450A: Public Economics Section 8: Optimal Minimum Wage and Introduction to Capital Taxation
Economics 2450A: Public Economics Section 8: Optimal Minimum Wage and Introduction to Capital Taxation Matteo Paradisi November 1, 2016 In this Section we develop a theoretical analysis of optimal minimum
More informationA political-economy model of taxation and government expenditures with differentiated candidates
A political-economy model of taxation and government expenditures with differentiated candidates Stefan Krasa Mattias Polborn May 9, 2009 Abstract e develop a model of political competition between two
More informationData Abundance and Asset Price Informativeness. On-Line Appendix
Data Abundance and Asset Price Informativeness On-Line Appendix Jérôme Dugast Thierry Foucault August 30, 07 This note is the on-line appendix for Data Abundance and Asset Price Informativeness. It contains
More informationEconomic Growth: Lecture 8, Overlapping Generations
14.452 Economic Growth: Lecture 8, Overlapping Generations Daron Acemoglu MIT November 20, 2018 Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 8 November 20, 2018 1 / 46 Growth with Overlapping Generations
More informationOptimal Income Taxation: Mirrlees Meets Ramsey
Optimal Income Taxation: Mirrlees Meets Ramsey Jonathan Heathcote Minneapolis Fed Hitoshi Tsujiyama University of Minnesota and Minneapolis Fed ASSA Meetings, January 2012 The views expressed herein are
More informationThe Importance of the Median Voter
The Importance of the Median Voter According to Duncan Black and Anthony Downs V53.0500 NYU 1 Committee Decisions utility 0 100 x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 V53.0500 NYU 2 Single-Peakedness Condition The preferences
More informationAppendix (For Online Publication) Community Development by Public Wealth Accumulation
March 219 Appendix (For Online Publication) to Community Development by Public Wealth Accumulation Levon Barseghyan Department of Economics Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 lb247@cornell.edu Stephen
More informationLecture 10: Mechanism Design
Computational Game Theory Spring Semester, 2009/10 Lecture 10: Mechanism Design Lecturer: Yishay Mansour Scribe: Vera Vsevolozhsky, Nadav Wexler 10.1 Mechanisms with money 10.1.1 Introduction As we have
More informationwhere u is the decision-maker s payoff function over her actions and S is the set of her feasible actions.
Seminars on Mathematics for Economics and Finance Topic 3: Optimization - interior optima 1 Session: 11-12 Aug 2015 (Thu/Fri) 10:00am 1:00pm I. Optimization: introduction Decision-makers (e.g. consumers,
More informationPublic Economics Ben Heijdra Chapter 9: Introduction to Normative Public Economics
Public Economics: Chapter 9 1 Public Economics Ben Heijdra Chapter 9: Introduction to Normative Public Economics Objectives of this chapter Public Economics: Chapter 9 2 Read Atkinson & Stiglitz (1980,
More informationMechanism Design: Basic Concepts
Advanced Microeconomic Theory: Economics 521b Spring 2011 Juuso Välimäki Mechanism Design: Basic Concepts The setup is similar to that of a Bayesian game. The ingredients are: 1. Set of players, i {1,
More informationBATH ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPERS
Lobbying, Campaign Contributions and Political Competition Javier Rivas No. 55 /16 BATH ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPERS Department of Economics Lobbying, Campaign Contributions and Political Competition Javier
More informationIntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Roland Bénabou Jean Tirole. Review of Economic Studies 2003 Bénabou and Tirole Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation 1 / 30 Motivation Should a child be rewarded for passing
More informationInformation Choice in Macroeconomics and Finance.
Information Choice in Macroeconomics and Finance. Laura Veldkamp New York University, Stern School of Business, CEPR and NBER Spring 2009 1 Veldkamp What information consumes is rather obvious: It consumes
More informationSimple New Keynesian Model without Capital
Simple New Keynesian Model without Capital Lawrence J. Christiano March, 28 Objective Review the foundations of the basic New Keynesian model without capital. Clarify the role of money supply/demand. Derive
More informationThe Revenue Equivalence Theorem 1
John Nachbar Washington University May 2, 2017 The Revenue Equivalence Theorem 1 1 Introduction. The Revenue Equivalence Theorem gives conditions under which some very different auctions generate the same
More informationGeneral Examination in Macroeconomic Theory
General Examination in Macroeconomic Theory Fall 2003 You have FOUR hours Solve all questions The exam has 4 parts Each part has its own sheet Please spend the following time on each part I 60 minutes
More informationVickrey-Clarke-Groves Mechanisms
Vickrey-Clarke-Groves Mechanisms Jonathan Levin 1 Economics 285 Market Design Winter 2009 1 These slides are based on Paul Milgrom s. onathan Levin VCG Mechanisms Winter 2009 1 / 23 Motivation We consider
More informationGrowth, Learning and Redistributive Policies
Growth, Learning and Redistributive Policies Vincenzo Quadrini Department of Economics and Fuqua School of Business Duke university September 2, 1999 Abstract This paper develops an endogenous growth model
More informationEquilibrium Equivalence under Expected Plurality and Probability of Winning Maximization
Equilibrium Equivalence under Expected Plurality and Probability of Winning Maximization INCOMPLETE: ONE SECTION MISSING John Duggan Department of Political Science and Department of Economics University
More informationChapter 7. Endogenous Growth II: R&D and Technological Change
Chapter 7 Endogenous Growth II: R&D and Technological Change 225 Economic Growth: Lecture Notes 7.1 Expanding Product Variety: The Romer Model There are three sectors: one for the final good sector, one
More informationInformation Acquisition in Interdependent Value Auctions
Information Acquisition in Interdependent Value Auctions Dirk Bergemann Xianwen Shi Juuso Välimäki July 16, 2008 Abstract We consider an auction environment with interdependent values. Each bidder can
More informationStatic Information Design
Static Information Design Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris Frontiers of Economic Theory & Computer Science, Becker-Friedman Institute, August 2016 Mechanism Design and Information Design Basic Mechanism
More informationField Exam: Advanced Theory
Field Exam: Advanced Theory There are two questions on this exam, one for Econ 219A and another for Economics 206. Answer all parts for both questions. Exercise 1: Consider a n-player all-pay auction auction
More informationLecture Notes: Industrial Organization Joe Chen 1. The Structure Conduct Performance (SCP) paradigm:
Joe Chen 1 1 Introduction 1.1 The Beginning Joe Bain and Edward Mason (the Harvard tradition): Empirical in nature (loose theories) The Structure Conduct Performance (SCP) paradigm: Structure (market structure):
More information1. The General Linear-Quadratic Framework
ECO 37 Economics of Uncertainty Fall Term 009 Notes for lectures Incentives for Effort - Multi-Dimensional Cases Here we consider moral hazard problems in the principal-agent framewor, restricting the
More informationThe Case for Responsible Parties
USC FBE APPLIED ECONOMICS WORKSHOP presented by Dan Bernhardt FRIDAY, Nov. 13, 2009 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm, Room: ACC-201 The Case for Responsible Parties Dan Bernhardt Department of Economics and Department
More informationDEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS YALE UNIVERSITY P.O. Box New Haven, CT
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS YALE UNIVERSITY P.O. Box 208268 New Haven, CT 06520-8268 http://www.econ.yale.edu/ Economics Department Working Paper No. 25 Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1619 Information
More information6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 24: Decisions in Groups
6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 24: Decisions in Groups Daron Acemoglu and Asu Ozdaglar MIT December 9, 2009 1 Introduction Outline Group and collective choices Arrow s Impossibility Theorem Gibbard-Satterthwaite
More informationIntroduction to General Equilibrium: Framework.
Introduction to General Equilibrium: Framework. Economy: I consumers, i = 1,...I. J firms, j = 1,...J. L goods, l = 1,...L Initial Endowment of good l in the economy: ω l 0, l = 1,...L. Consumer i : preferences
More informationLecture 4. 1 Examples of Mechanism Design Problems
CSCI699: Topics in Learning and Game Theory Lecture 4 Lecturer: Shaddin Dughmi Scribes: Haifeng Xu,Reem Alfayez 1 Examples of Mechanism Design Problems Example 1: Single Item Auctions. There is a single
More informationA Summary of Economic Methodology
A Summary of Economic Methodology I. The Methodology of Theoretical Economics All economic analysis begins with theory, based in part on intuitive insights that naturally spring from certain stylized facts,
More informationA Rothschild-Stiglitz approach to Bayesian persuasion
A Rothschild-Stiglitz approach to Bayesian persuasion Matthew Gentzkow and Emir Kamenica Stanford University and University of Chicago December 2015 Abstract Rothschild and Stiglitz (1970) represent random
More informationLoss Aversion and the Dynamics of Political Commitment
Prepared with SEVI S LIDES Loss Aversion and the Dynamics of Political Commitment John Hassler (IIES) José V. Rodriguez Mora (University of Edinburgh) June 4, 2010 Summary (1/2) Political commitment Traditional
More informationGeneral Equilibrium and Welfare
and Welfare Lectures 2 and 3, ECON 4240 Spring 2017 University of Oslo 24.01.2017 and 31.01.2017 1/37 Outline General equilibrium: look at many markets at the same time. Here all prices determined in the
More informationAdvanced Economic Growth: Lecture 3, Review of Endogenous Growth: Schumpeterian Models
Advanced Economic Growth: Lecture 3, Review of Endogenous Growth: Schumpeterian Models Daron Acemoglu MIT September 12, 2007 Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Advanced Growth Lecture 3 September 12, 2007 1 / 40 Introduction
More informationPolitical Economy of Institutions and Development. Lecture 8. Institutional Change and Democratization
14.773 Political Economy of Institutions and Development. Lecture 8. Institutional Change and Democratization Daron Acemoglu MIT March 6, 2018. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Political Economy Lecture 8 March 6,
More informationPolitical Economy of Institutions and Development. Lecture 4. Economic Institutions under Elite Domination
14.773 Political Economy of Institutions and Development. Lecture 4. Economic Institutions under Elite Domination Daron Acemoglu MIT February 16, 2017 Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Political Economy Lecture 4 February
More informationSession 4: Money. Jean Imbs. November 2010
Session 4: Jean November 2010 I So far, focused on real economy. Real quantities consumed, produced, invested. No money, no nominal in uences. I Now, introduce nominal dimension in the economy. First and
More informationFoundations of Modern Macroeconomics B. J. Heijdra & F. van der Ploeg Chapter 6: The Government Budget Deficit
Foundations of Modern Macroeconomics: Chapter 6 1 Foundations of Modern Macroeconomics B. J. Heijdra & F. van der Ploeg Chapter 6: The Government Budget Deficit Foundations of Modern Macroeconomics: Chapter
More informationInformation Design. Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Johns Hopkins University April 2017
Information Design Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris Johns Hopkins University April 2017 Mechanism Design and Information Design Basic Mechanism Design: Fix an economic environment and information structure
More informationA Rothschild-Stiglitz approach to Bayesian persuasion
A Rothschild-Stiglitz approach to Bayesian persuasion Matthew Gentzkow and Emir Kamenica Stanford University and University of Chicago January 2016 Consider a situation where one person, call him Sender,
More informationPOLICY PLATFORMS, CAMPAIGN SPENDING AND VOTER PARTICIPATION
POLICY PLATFORMS, CAMPAIGN SPENDING AND VOTER PARTICIPATION HELIOS HERRERA, DAVID K. LEVINE AND CÉSAR MARTINELLI ABSTRACT. We model electoral competition between two parties in a winner-take-all election.
More informationproblem. max Both k (0) and h (0) are given at time 0. (a) Write down the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) Equation in the dynamic programming
1. Endogenous Growth with Human Capital Consider the following endogenous growth model with both physical capital (k (t)) and human capital (h (t)) in continuous time. The representative household solves
More informationSTATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY Department of Economics
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY Department of Economics Ph. D. Comprehensive Examination: Macroeconomics Fall, 202 Answer Key to Section 2 Questions Section. (Suggested Time: 45 Minutes) For 3 of
More informationOptimal Insurance of Search Risk
Optimal Insurance of Search Risk Mikhail Golosov Yale University and NBER Pricila Maziero University of Pennsylvania Guido Menzio University of Pennsylvania and NBER November 2011 Introduction Search and
More informationFoundations of Modern Macroeconomics Second Edition
Foundations of Modern Macroeconomics Second Edition Chapter 5: The government budget deficit Ben J. Heijdra Department of Economics & Econometrics University of Groningen 1 September 2009 Foundations of
More informationWhen to Ask for an Update: Timing in Strategic Communication
When to Ask for an Update: Timing in Strategic Communication Work in Progress Ying Chen Johns Hopkins University Atara Oliver Rice University March 19, 2018 Main idea In many communication situations,
More informationSupplementary Appendix for Informative Cheap Talk in Elections
Supplementary Appendix for Informative Cheap Talk in Elections Navin Kartik Richard Van Weelden October 19, 2017 Abstract This Supplementary Appendix formalizes two extensions of the baseline model discussed
More informationRobust Predictions in Games with Incomplete Information
Robust Predictions in Games with Incomplete Information joint with Stephen Morris (Princeton University) November 2010 Payoff Environment in games with incomplete information, the agents are uncertain
More informationMultiple Equilibria in the Citizen-Candidate Model of Representative Democracy.
Multiple Equilibria in the Citizen-Candidate Model of Representative Democracy. Amrita Dhillon and Ben Lockwood This version: March 2001 Abstract De Sinopoli and Turrini (1999) present an example to show
More information