Regulation Under Asymmetric Information
|
|
- Avice Carroll
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Regulation Under Asymmetric Information Lecture 5: Course 608 Sugata Bag Delhi School of Economics February 2013 Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 1 / 50
2 Basic Concepts The Environment Regulatory Context One product to be produced and consumed Two players: Principal (Regulator) and Agent (Firm) Firm is a profit maximizing monopolist; e.g., water, power suppliers, road, airport service providers Benevolent Regulator wants to maximize social welfare Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 2 / 50
3 Basic Concepts The Environment Information Asymmetry Environment Firm s private info on cost/s can take two states a low (L) with probablity φ [0, 1] a high (H) with probablity (1 φ) 3 possible cases of AI faced by regulator related to firm s info on costs unknown but exgenous MC, fixed cost is known - regulator makes a transfer itself for firm - regulator collects the transfer from consumer to pay firm both MC and F unknown to Regulator MC of firm is endogenous and observable by regulator, but he is not fully informed about F In the 3 situations above demand function is common knowledge. Regulator in all cases above sets a unit price p and a tranfer T Another case, when there s asymmetric demand Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 3 / 50
4 The Model-I Set-up Hidden Information Model -I Model-I: Implementation of a menu of contract {q,t} and its issues. Regulator does not charge the consumers, makes the transfer to the firm itself which is necessary to carry on the production, and sets a quantity target for the firm Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 4 / 50
5 The Model-I Set-up The Assumptions Consumer Suplus & Cost V (q) denotes the consumer surplus from (or the (money) value of) q units of output to the Regulator, where V (q) > 0 and V (q) < 0 Cost of production C (q, θ) = θq + F where θ i {θ L, θ H } with θ L < θ H Note that regulator being uninformed about MC attaches a probability to each type - Pr(θ = θ L ) = φ and Pr(θ = θ H ) = 1 φ Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 5 / 50
6 The Model-I Set-up Full Information Bench mark The First Best Let the social welfare in state i be: W i (q) = {V (q) C (q, θ i } Therefore, for given θ i {θ L, θ H }, the FB is a solution to the following problem for the regulator when he is aware of the realised state i for the monopoly firm - max q W i (q) = {V (q) C (q, θ i )} i.e. max q {V (q) θ i.q F } The unique (interior) solution is provided by the following FoC: V (q) = θ i for each i Let qi be the solution for the previous equation. Clearly ql > q H > 0 Indeed you can verify the following: V (q L ) θ L.q L F > V (q H ) θ H.q H F W (q L ) > W (q H ) 0 Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 6 / 50
7 The Model-I Set-up The First Best Implementing the FB Let the transfer to the firm from the regulator be t i such that t i = θ i.q i + F. When there is no informational asymmetry about θ, the Regulator will make the following take it or leave it offers:- If θ = θ L, firm is offered (q L ; t L ), i.e., t L for production level q L ; and If θ = θ H, firm is offered (q H ; t H ), i.e., t H for production level q H ; Since each type of firm gets non-negative utility from the offer, it accepts the offer. Note that this transfer is not collected from the consumers. The first best payoff for the Regulator is - V (q L ) t L, if θ = θ L V (q H ) t H, if θ = θ H Ex-ante pay-off to the regulator is - W = φ{v (q L ) t L } + (1 φ){v (q H ) t H } the Regulator is able to appropriate the entire surplus from the trade. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 7 / 50
8 Hidden Information -I: The Model-I Set-up The Second Best Assumption: The Regulator does not observe θ. However, knows the distribution - Pr(θ = θ L ) = φ and Pr(θ = θ H ) = 1 φ Let θ = θ H θ L > 0 be a measure of the spread of uncertainty of firm type. Only Contractible variables are q and monetary transfers from principle to the Firm t. Definition Contracts: A contract is a feasible, observable and verifiable allocation (q; t). The set of contracts is - A= {(q; t) : q R +, t R} Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 8 / 50
9 The Model-I Set-up The Second Best Hidden Information-II: Implementing issue Proposition: When Regulator does not observe θ, contract ((ql ; t L ); (q H ; t H )) cannot be implemented. Note under contract {(q L ; t L ), (q H ; t H )}, π L = t L θ L.q L F = 0 and π H = t H θ H.q H F = 0 i.e. truth telling means that each firm type s profit is equal to zero, i.e., the outside (reservation) profit. However, since θ H > θ L t H θ L.q H F t H θ H.q H F = 0 Therefore, t H θ L.q H F > t L θ L.q L F = 0 i.e. type L Firm is better off mimicking as type H. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 9 / 50
10 The Model-I Set-up The Second Best Hidden Information-III : Incentive Compatibility Definition A menu of contracts {(q L ; t L ); (q H ; t H )} is incentive compatible if - t L θ L.q L F t H θ L.q H F = {t H θ H.q H F } + {θ H.q H θ L.q H } i.e. π L π H + θ.q H (1) t H θ H.q H F t L θ H.q L F = {t L θ L.q L F } {θ H.q L θ H.q L } i.e. π H π L θ.q L (2) Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 10 / 50
11 The Model-I Set-up The Second Best Hidden Information-IV : A Feasible Contract Definition A menu of contracts {(q L ; t L ); (q H ; t H )} is incentive compatible [given (1) and (2)] and rationality feasible if it satisfies the following individual rationality constraints - t L θ L.q L F 0 i.e. π L 0 (3) t H θ H.q H F 0 i.e. π H 0 (4) Example 1. Consider {(qh ; t H ); (q H ; t H )}This contract results in pooling of types. 2. Consider {(ql ; t L ); (0; 0)}. This contract results in shutting down of ineffi cient types. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 11 / 50
12 Hidden Information-V The Model-I Set-up The Second Best Remarks Monotonicity of Output: Adding (1) and (2) gives us - (θ H θ L ).q L (θ H θ L ).q H i.e. q L q H. In fact, any pair (q L ; q H ) is implementable iff q L q H (1) and (4) imply that as long as q H > 0, t L θ L.q L > 0; i:e:; if ineffi cient type is required to produce, the profit of the effi cient type will be positive. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 12 / 50
13 The Model-I Set-up The Second Best Hidden Information-VI The Regulator s optimization problem is - max (q L,t L ),(q H,t H ) W = φ{v (q L) t L } + (1 φ){v (q H ) t H } subject to (1)-(4) As π L = t L θ L.q L F and π H = t H θ H.q H F, we rewrite (1) to (4) - π L π H + θ.q H (5) π H π L θ.q L (6) π L 0 (7) π H 0 (8) Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 13 / 50
14 The Model-I Set-up The Second Best Hidden Information-VII Now regulator s optimisation problem can be further rewritten as - max φ{v (q L) θ L q L } + (1 φ){v (q H ) θ H q H } (q L,π L ),(q H,π H ) subject to (5) to (8). - Note that - {φπ L + (1 φ)π H } Allocative Effi ciency: φ{v (q L ) θ L.q L } + (1 φ){v (q H ) θ H.q H } Information Rent: {φ.π L + (1 φ).π H } Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 14 / 50
15 The Model-I Set-up The Second Best Hidden Information-IX: Remarks Remark: (5) and (8) together imply (7). That is, [π L π H + θ.q H ] and [π H 0] π L 0 under optimum contract (5) and (8) will both bind, i.e., π H = 0 and (9) π L = θ.q H (10) Ignoring (6) for the time being, the Regulator s optimization problem becomes - max [φ{v (q L) θ L.q L F } + (1 φ){v (q H ) θ H.q H F } φ. θ.q H ] (q L,q H ) Note that we have effectively substituted all the constraints in the objective function above by now. Now we can derive the FoC s... but pause for a moment to consider... Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 15 / 50
16 The Model-I Set-up The Second Best Hidden Information-VIII: Consider following - Consider a menu of contract like the following - {(F + θ L.q L + θ.q H ); q L}, {(F + θ H.q H ); q H } i.e.{(π L = θ.q H ); q L}, {(π H = 0); q H }. It is incentive feasible and implements the FB. But, will Regulator offer this contract? Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 16 / 50
17 The Model-I Set-up The Second Best Hidden info - Optimisation Results: V (q L ) = θ L (11) V (q H ) = θ H + φ 1 φ. θ (12) That is, ql SB = ql but qsb H < q H. Verify that at the SB values (6) is satisfied. The SB transfers are given by (9) and (10), i.e., π SB H = π H = 0 and πsb L > πl. i.e. - th SB = θ H.qH SB and tsb H = θ L.qL + θ.qh SB Fact (Remark) k 1. Allocative ineffi ciency increases with θ. 2. The (information) rent yielded to the effi cient type increases with θ. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 17 / 50
18 The Model-I Set-up Optimisation Result: Remarks The Second Best Moreover, (12) can be expressed as (1 φ){v (qh SB ) θ H } = φ. θ i.e. at the SB marginal benefit (LHS) from increasing q H is equal to the marginal cost (RHS) of doing so. Clearly, if V (.) is finite, shutdown takes place for φ close to 1. More generally, shutting down of ineffi cient type is optimal for the Regulator if φ[v (ql) θ L.qL] φ[v (ql SB ) θ L.qL SB θ.q SB φ. θ.q SB H (1 φ)[v (q SB H ) θ H.q SB H ] (1 φ)[v (qh SB ) θ H.qH SB ] H ] + Market failure Ex: Show that shutdown becomes more likely as the outside profit (status quo utility level) goes up. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 18 / 50
19 The Model-II Set-up Hidden Information Model -II Model-II: Implementation of a menu of contract {p,t}, and its issues Benevolent Regulator wants to maximize social welfare [S + αr] Regulator tries to implement two part paricing, collects transfers from consumers to pay to firm Regulator values CS (S) more highly than the Rents (R) or net profits to firm. Thus attaches a weight α [0, 1] to R when α = 1, regulator treats S and R equally when α < 1, firm s rent R is socially costly Regulator wishes to limit the the transfer from consumers to firm and tries to limit R to a miminimum Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 19 / 50
20 The Model-II Set-up The Assumptions Demand & Consumer Suplus Monopoly supplies single product at a regulated price p 0 The demand curve for the regulated product: Q(p) Consumer suplus at price p is v(p) where v(.) is a convex function of p Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 20 / 50
21 Cost of production The Model-II Set-up The Assumptions C (Q, c i ) = c i.q + F, where c i {c L, c H } and Note that regulator being uninformed about MC attaches a probability to each type - Pr(c = c L ) = φ and Pr(c = c H ) = 1 φ c = c H c L > 0, a measure of spread of uncetainty of firm type. For MC type i (:= L, H) at price p i - firm profit : π i = Q(p i ).(p i c i ) F and firm rent: R i = π i (p i ) + T i = Q(p i ).(p i c i ) F + T i Let us now make an important assumption on the difference in firm s operating profit at price p in states H and L - π (p) = π H (p) π L (p) and d dp π > 0 (13) This "increasing difference" property reflects the standard single crossing property which holds when the firm s MRS of price for transfer payment varies monotonically with underlying state. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 21 / 50
22 The Model-II Set-up The Assumptions Regulator s Optimisation - I Regulator seeks to maximise S + αr Welfare in state i (i.e. eigheted average of of CS & Rent) when p i price is charged and T i transfer is made - W i = S i + αr i = [v i (p i ) T i ] + α[π i (p i ) + T i ] = [v i (p i ) + π i (p i )] (1 α)[π i (p i ) + T i ] Or, W i = w i (p i ) (1 α)r i, where i = L, H (14) where w i (p i ) = v i (p i ) + π i (p i ) : total unweighted surplus (the sum of consumer surplus and profit) in state i when price p i is charged Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 22 / 50
23 The Model-II Set-up The First Best Regulator s Optimisation - II : Full Information set-up Fact Will Marginal cost pricing be allowed? That is will p i = c i hold? If Regulator can observe firm s realised MC (i.e. either c L or c H ) then he would implement the (Ramsey) price that maximise w i (.) when MC is c i in the previous expression (2) for i = L, H. These full information prices would be MC prices (i.e. p i = c i ) and In effect R i = 0 => T i = F Clearly, p L = c L < p H = c H and, w L (p L ) > w H (p H ) > 0 Definition Contracts: A contract is a feasible, observable and verifiable allocation (p; T), where p is the per-unit price the firm can charge and T is the payment it receives from the regulator. The set of contracts is A= {(p; T ) : p R +, T R} Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 23 / 50
24 The Model-II Set-up The First Best Implementing the first best in full info set up Note that we already have, T i = T = F and p i = c i When there is no informational asymmetry about, the Regulator will make the following take it or leave it offers: - If c = c L, the Firm is offered (p L, T ) and If c = c H, the Firm is offered (p H, T ) Since each Firm gets non-negative utility from the offer, it accepts the offer. The first best payoff for the Regulator is - w L (pl ) (1 α)r L w H (ph ) (1 α)r H if c = c L if c = c H Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 24 / 50
25 The Model-II Set-up The Second Best: Hidden Information Case Issue of implementing the first best in Hidden info set up Why? Let s see... Suppose the regulator announces that he will implement unit price p i and transfer payment T i when the firm claims to have marginal cost c i ; for i = L; H. When the firm in i th state with cost c i chooses the (p i ; T i ) option, its rent will be R i = Q(p i ).(p i c i ) F + T i In contrast, if when the firm in i th state with cost c i chooses the (p j ; T j ) option, its rent will be Q(p j ).(p j c i ) F + T j = R j + Q(p j ).(c j c i ) From expression above, low cost firm may have an incentive to over-state its MC!!! What about high cost firm s temptation? Low-cost firm will choose (p L ; T L ) option, if following be true R L R H + c.q(p H ) (15) Therefore, the full-information outcome is not feasible, since inequality (15) cannot hold when both R H = 0 and R L = 0. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 25 / 50
26 The Model-II Set-up The Second Best: Hidden Information Case Menu of contract Regulator has offer a different menu of contract than FB and follow a constrined optimisation procedure as follows - The regulator seeks to maximize the expected value of a weighted average of consumer surplus and rent in two states [of expression (14) above]. Therefore, ex ante expected welfare is - W = φ{w L (p L ) (1 α)r L } + (1 φ){w H (p H ) (1 α)r H } (16). To implement a menu of contracts {(p L ; T L ); (p H ; T H )}, Regulator would optimise expression above under following constrints - [IR] Individual rationality or participation constraint,and [IC] Incentive compatibility constrint Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 26 / 50
27 The Model-II Set-up The Second Best: Hidden Information Case Menu of contract II Definition A menu of contracts is individually rational when type i firm agrees to produce only if she receives a non-negative rent i.e. R H 0 and R L 0 (17) If the state of world unkown to the regulator, he must ensure that contracts are such that each type of firm finds it in its interest to choose the correct contract i.e. IC. Definition A menu of contracts {(p L ; T L ); (p H ; T H )} is IC if - Q(p L ).(p L c L ) F + T L Q(p H ).(p H c L ) F + T H (18) Q(p H ).(p H c H ) F + T H Q(p L ).(p L c H ) F + T L (19) Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 27 / 50
28 Menu of contract III The Model-II Set-up The Second Best: Hidden Information Case IC s can be re-written respectively as follows - R L R H π (p H ) (20) R H R L + π (p L ) (21) Adding the expressions (20) and (21) we get - π (p H ) π (p L ) (22) Note that increasing difference expression (13) together with inequality (22) just above ensure that eqlm prices must be higher in state H than in state L in any incentivecompatible regulatory policy, i.e., - p H p L (23) Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 28 / 50
29 The Model-II Set-up The Second Best: Hidden Information Case Regulator s Optimisation Let s now re-write Regulator s optimisation problem as follows - max [φ{w L(p L ) (1 α)r L } + (1 φ){w H (p H ) (1 α)r H }] (p L,T L ),(p H,T H ) Or, max [φ{w L(p L ) (1 α)r L } + (1 φ){w H (p H ) (1 α)r H }] (p L,R L ),(p H,R H ) Subject to R L 0 and (24) R H 0 (25) R L R H π (p H ) (26) R H R L + π (p L ) (27) The expression (25) and (26) bind the solution. which means... next page... Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 29 / 50
30 The Model-II Set-up Regulator s Optimisation II The Second Best: Hidden Information Case The expression (25) and (26) bind the solution. which means - R H 0 (28) R L = π (p H ) (29) will hold. Using (28) and (29), optimisation problem becomes max W = φ{w L(p L ) + (1 α) π (p H )} + (1 φ){w H (p H )} (30) (p L,p H ) Since w i (p i ) = v i (p i ) + π i (p i ), we re-write above expression as - max φ{v L(p L ) + π L (p L ) + (1 α) π (p H )} + (1 φ){v H (p H ) + π H (p H )} (p L,p H ) where, recall that, π i = Q(p i ).(p i c i ) F. We derive the foc as follows - Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 30 / 50
31 The Model-II Set-up Regulator s Optimisation III : FoC result The Second Best: Hidden Information Case Proposition 1: When the firm is privately informed about its MC of production, optimal regulatory policy has following features: - Fact pl SB = c L = pl (31) ph SB = c H + φ 1 φ (1 α) c > ph (32) R L = c.q(p H ); and R H = 0 (33) 1. For all α < 1, ph SB > p H i.e. Q(pSB H ) < Q(p H ); increase in p H above c H reduces the rent of the low-cost firm which increases welfare it reduces the total surplus available when the firm is high cost type. 2. α = 1, ph SB = p H i.e. Q(pSB H ) = Q(p H ), Note here that this coincides with Loeb-Magat case dealt earlier 3. α > 1, ph SB < p H i.e. Q(pSB H ) > Q(p H ) Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 31 / 50
32 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC Hidden Information Model -III Model-III: Endogenous costs (fixed cost and MC are inversely related) Implementation of a menu of contract {p,t}, and its issues First Best menu is possible but conditional Benevolent Regulator wants to maximize social welfare [S + αr] where α [0, 1] Regulator tries to implement two part paricing, collects transfers from consumers to pay to firm Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 32 / 50
33 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC The Hidden Information Case Counterveiling Incentives: The environment The firm is privately informed about both its F & MC It is common knowledge that F is inversely relate MC Fixed Cost c L F L c H F H where c L < c H = F L > F H with c = c H c L > 0 and F = F L F H > 0 Monopoly supplies single product at a regulated price p 0 The demand curve for the regulated product: Q(p) Consumer suplus at price p is v(p) where v(.) is a convex in p. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 33 / 50
34 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC The Hidden Information Case Social Welfare, firm profit & rent Note that regulator being uninformed about MC attaches a probability to each type - Pr(c = c L ) = φ and Pr(c = c H ) = 1 φ For MC type i (:= L, H) at price p i - firm profit : π i = Q(p i ).(p i c i ) F i and (34) firm rent : R i = π i (p i ) + T i = Q(p i ).(p i c i ) F i + T i (35) Welfare in state i when p i price is charged and T i transfer is made - W i = S i + αr i = [v i (p i ) T i ] + α[π i (p i ) + T i ]Or, W i = w i (p i ) (1 α)r i, where i = L, H where w i (p i ) = v i (p i ) + π i (p i ) is total unweighted surplus. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 34 / 50
35 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC First Best menu in full info state The Hidden Information Case If Regulator can observe firm s realised MC (i.e. either c L or c H ), so that it can indirectly infer about the respective fixed cost; then he would implement the (Ramsey) price that maximise w i (.) when MC is c i in the previous expression ( ) for i = L, H. These full information prices would be MC prices (i.e. pi In effect Ri = 0 => Ti = F i Clearly, pl = c L < ph = c H and, TL = F L > TH = F H further, w L (p L ) > w H (p H ) > 0 = c i ) and Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 35 / 50
36 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC The First Best Implementing the first best in full info set up Note that we already have, T i = F i and p i = c i When there is no informational asymmetry about, the Regulator will make the following take it or leave it offers: - If c = c L, the Firm is offered (p L, T L = F L) and If c = c H, the Firm is offered (p H, T H = F H ) Since each Firm gets non-negative utility from the offer, it accepts the offer. The first best payoff for the Regulator is - w L (pl ) (1 α)r L w H (ph ) (1 α)r H if c = c L if c = c H Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 36 / 50
37 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC The Hidden Info and issue FB implementation problem: which type wants deviate? Note that if when the firm in i th state firm claims to be j th state and chooses the (p j ; T j ) option, its rent will be - Q(p j ).(p j c i ) F i + T j = R j + Q(p j ).(c j c i ) i.e. when L state claims to be H, gets a rent - Q(p H ).(p H c L ) F L + T H = R H F + c Q(p H ) (36) From expression above, low cost firm may have an incentive to over-state its MC!!! What about high cost firm s temptation? when H state firm claims L, gets a rent - Q(p L ).(p L c H ) F H + T L = R L + F c Q(p L ) (37) From expression above, high cost firm may also have an incentive to under-state its MC!!! Something suprising here?!! Incentive to each type depends on the interaction of the magnitude of F and c Q(p i ) Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 37 / 50
38 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC The Hidden Info and issue Regulator s Optimisation - I Regulator might have to offer a different menu of contract than FB The regulator to implement a menu of contracts {(p L ; T L ); (p H ; T H )}, follows a constrined optimisation procedure to maximise ex ante expected welfare as follows - Max W = φ{w L (p L ) (1 α)r L } + (1 φ){w H (p H ) (1 α)r H } (38) under following constrints - R L 0 [IR L ] (39) R H 0 [IR H ] (40) R L R H F + c Q(p H ) [IC L ] (41) R H R L + F c Q(p L ) [IC H ] (42) Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 38 / 50
39 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC The Hidden Info and issue Regulator s Optimisation - II Since π i (p) = Q(p).(p c i ) F i, it then follows that - Therefore we can rewrite IC s as follows - π (p) = F c Q(p) (43) R L R H π (p H ) [IC L ] (44) R H R L + π (p L ) [IC H ] (45) Adding the expressions above, we get - π (p H ) π (p L ) Note that increasing difference expression (13) together with inequality just above just above ensure that eqlm prices must be higher in state H than in state L in any incentive compatible regulatory policy, i.e., - p H p L Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 39 / 50
40 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC First Proposition of the model The Hidden Info and issue Proposition 2: When the firm is privately informed about both its F & MC: (i) If F [ c Q(c H ); c Q(c L )] then the full-information outcome is feasible (and optimal); (ii) If F < c Q(c H ) then p H > c H and p L = c L ; (iii) If F > c Q(c L ) then p L < c L and p H = c H Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 40 / 50
41 Pair of inequalities in (46) if the full-info outcome is to be attainable, profit functions π H (.) and π L (.) must cross: operating profit must be higher in state H than in L at full-info price p H, & same must be lower in state H than in L at full-info price p L.Full-info outcome won t be feasible if firm s operating profit is systematically higher in one state than the other (e.g. as when firm is privately Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 41 / 50 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC Proof of Proposition 2: Part i The Hidden Info and issue If F [ c Q(c H ); c Q(c L )] then full-info outcome is feasible & optimal Recall that in the full-information outcome, the type-i firm sets price pi and receives zero rent. when the regulator does not observe the state, the IC s (44) and (45) imply that this full-info outcome is attainable iff π (ph ) }{{} (R H R L ) }{{}}{{} π (pl ) ICL =0 ICH i.e. F c Q(p H ) 0 F c Q(p L ) Or, c Q(p H ) F c Q(p L ) (46)
42 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC The Hidden Info and issue Proof of Proposition 2: Part iii (iii) If F > c Q(c L ) then p H = c H and p L < c L ; In this case, the first-best contract given above violates (ICH) only, which implies (ICH) must be binding at the optimum. p L < p H is necessary and suffi cient for (ICL) to be satisfied, given that (ICH) is binding. the binding incentive problem for the regulator is to prevent the firm from exaggerating its F via understating its mc. To mitigate the firm s incentive to understate c, the regulator sets p L < c L. Doing so increases beyond its full-info level the output the firm must produce at a rate of compensation that is unprofitable when the firm s mc is high. Similarly, part ii can be proved. When the potential variation in F is either more pronounced or less pronounced than in part (i) of Proposition 2, the full-information outcome is no longer feasible. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 42 / 50
43 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC The Hidden Info and issue Proof of Proposition 2: Solution for Part ii, FoCs (ii) If F < c Q(c H ) then p H > c H and p L = c L ; The expression (41) and (42) bind the solution. which means - R H 0 (47) R L = π (p H ) (48) will hold. Using (47) and (48) above, optimisation problem becomes - max (p L,p H ) W = φ{w L(p L ) + (1 α) π (p H )} + (1 φ){w H (p H )} Since w i (p i ) = v i (p i ) + π i (p i ), we re-write above expression as - max φ{v L(p L ) + π L (p L ) + (1 α) π (p H )} + (1 φ){v H (p H ) + π H (p H )} (p L,p H ) where, recall that, π i = Q(p i ).(p i c i ) F. We derive the foc as in proposition 1. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 43 / 50
44 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC The Hidden Info and issue Regulator s Optimisation III : FoC result When F < c Q(c H ) then p H > c H and p L = c L When the firm is privately informed about its MC of production, optimal regulatory policy has following features: - pl SB = c L = pl (49) ph SB = c H + φ 1 φ (1 α) c > ph (50) R L = c.q(p H ); and R H = 0 (51) Can you deduce the results for the other case?? Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 44 / 50
45 The Model-III Endogenous MC & FC Implications of Proposition 2 The Hidden Info and issue The regulator may gain by creating countervailing incentives for the regulated firm. For instance, the regulator may mandate the adoption of technologies in which fixed costs vary inversely with variable costs. Alternatively, he may authorize expanded participation in unregulated markets the more lucrative the firm reports such participation to be (and thus the lower the firm admits its operating cost in the regulated market to be) Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 45 / 50
46 The Model-IV Endogenous MC & FC Hidden Information Model -IV The regulator can observe firm s mc but cannot ascertain how this mc is realised (i.e. whether exogenously chosen by nature or, endogenously chosen through effort, which is modelled via fixed cost) Two types of firms - type-l: has to spend relatively low F to achive low mc type-h: has to spend relatively greater F to achive low mc Let F i (c) denote the fixed cost for type-i where F i (.) is decreasing and convex with F H (c) > F L (c) and d dc [F H (c) F L (c)] < 0 Regulator cannot observe firm type (i.e its F H (c)) but attaches probability φ F L (c) Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 46 / 50
47 The Model-IV Endogenous MC & FC What happens in this setting? The regulator has 3 policy instuments in this situation viz. p, T and c. The regulator s limited info allows the firm with low F to get a rent Towards limiting this rent, regulator may restrict reward to to type-l firm Distortion happens, firm type-l may not reduce its mc to the full-info level Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 47 / 50
48 The Model-IV Endogenous MC & FC What happens in this setting?... 2 The regulator announces that he will authorise p i, T i when the firm claims to be type-i, provided mc=c i is observed. Similar to earlier cases, eqlm rent for type-i firm R i is given by - R i = Q(p i ).(p i c i ) F i (c i ) + T i (52) Again low cost firm won t claim to have high F iff - R L R H + F H (c H ) F L (c H ) (53) Note that high-cost firm does not have any incentive to mimick type-l - Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 48 / 50
49 The Model-IV Endogenous MC & FC The First Best The net consumer surplus in state-i is - v i (p i ) T i Using expression (52) above, we can rewrite this as follows - v i (p i ) + Q(p i ).(p i c i ) F i (c i ) R i (54) Regulator s choice of prices {p L, p H } does not affect the binding incentive constraint (53) above, given the coice of rents {R L, R H }. Thus prices do not affect the the rents. This is the Laffont-Tirole s "Incentive-pricing Dichotomy" i.e. - prices (generally) should be used solely to attain allocative effi ciency, while rents should be used to motivate the firm to produce at low cost. Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 49 / 50
50 The Proposition The Model-IV Endogenous MC & FC If regulator knew firm s type, he would also require the effi cient level of mc, which is the cost that maximizes total surplus {v(c) F i (c)}. As usual, though, the full-info outcome is not feasible when the regulator does not share the firm s knowledge of its technology. To limit the low-cost firm s rent, the regulator inflates the high-cost firm s mc above the full-info level, as reported in Proposition next. Proposition 3: When the firm s mc is observable but endogenous, the optimal regulatory policy has the following features: p L = c L ; p H = c H ; (55) Q(c L ) + F L(c L ) = 0; (56) Q(c H ) + F H (c H ) = φ 1 φ [F H (c H ) F L(c H )] > 0 (57) R L = F H (c H ) F L (c H ) > 0; R H = 0 (58) Sugata Bag (DSE) Regulation Under Asymmetric Information 08/02 50 / 50
ECON INFORMATION ECONOMICS. Lecture 2 February 2016 Slides based on Laffont & Martimort UiO, Spring 2016
ECON4240 - INFORMATION ECONOMICS Lecture 2 February 2016 Slides based on Laffont & Martimort UiO, Spring 2016 Asymmetric information A knows his own cost-type θ P does not know the cost-type θ of A What
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 informationOn the Pareto Efficiency of a Socially Optimal Mechanism for Monopoly Regulation
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive On the Pareto Efficiency of a Socially Optimal Mechanism for Monopoly Regulation Ismail Saglam Ipek University 4 May 2016 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/71090/
More informationG5212: Game Theory. Mark Dean. Spring 2017
G5212: Game Theory Mark Dean Spring 2017 Adverse Selection We are now going to go back to the Adverse Selection framework Mechanism Design with 1 agent Though that agent may be of many types Note that
More informationSome Notes on Adverse Selection
Some Notes on Adverse Selection John Morgan Haas School of Business and Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley Overview This set of lecture notes covers a general model of adverse selection
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 informationOverview. Producer Theory. Consumer Theory. Exchange
Overview Consumer Producer Exchange Edgeworth Box All Possible Exchange Points Contract Curve Overview Consumer Producer Exchange (Multiplicity) Walrasian Equilibrium Walrasian Equilibrium Requirements:
More informationx ax 1 2 bx2 a bx =0 x = a b. Hence, a consumer s willingness-to-pay as a function of liters on sale, 1 2 a 2 2b, if l> a. (1)
Answers to Exam Economics 201b First Half 1. (a) Observe, first, that no consumer ever wishes to consume more than 3/2 liters (i.e., 1.5 liters). To see this, observe that, even if the beverage were free,
More informationIntroduction: Asymmetric Information and the Coase Theorem
BGPE Intensive Course: Contracts and Asymmetric Information Introduction: Asymmetric Information and the Coase Theorem Anke Kessler Anke Kessler p. 1/?? Introduction standard neoclassical economic theory
More informationEconS 501 Final Exam - December 10th, 2018
EconS 501 Final Exam - December 10th, 018 Show all your work clearly and make sure you justify all your answers. NAME 1. Consider the market for smart pencil in which only one firm (Superapiz) enjoys a
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 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 informationNTU IO (I) : Auction Theory and Mechanism Design II Groves Mechanism and AGV Mechansim. u i (x, t i, θ i ) = V i (x, θ i ) + t i,
Meng-Yu Liang NTU O : Auction Theory and Mechanism Design Groves Mechanism and AGV Mechansim + 1 players. Types are drawn from independent distribution P i on [θ i, θ i ] with strictly positive and differentiable
More informationG5212: Game Theory. Mark Dean. Spring 2017
G5212: Game Theory Mark Dean Spring 2017 Adverse Selection We have now completed our basic analysis of the adverse selection model This model has been applied and extended in literally thousands of ways
More informationMicroeconomics II Lecture 4: Incomplete Information Karl Wärneryd Stockholm School of Economics November 2016
Microeconomics II Lecture 4: Incomplete Information Karl Wärneryd Stockholm School of Economics November 2016 1 Modelling incomplete information So far, we have studied games in which information was complete,
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 informationDurable goods monopolist
Durable goods monopolist Coase conjecture: A monopolist selling durable good has no monopoly power. Reason: A P 1 P 2 B MC MC D MR Q 1 Q 2 C Q Although Q 1 is optimal output of the monopolist, it faces
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 informationNotes on Mechanism Designy
Notes on Mechanism Designy ECON 20B - Game Theory Guillermo Ordoñez UCLA February 0, 2006 Mechanism Design. Informal discussion. Mechanisms are particular types of games of incomplete (or asymmetric) information
More informationMonopoly Regulation in the Presence of Consumer Demand-Reduction
Monopoly Regulation in the Presence of Consumer Demand-Reduction Susumu Sato July 9, 2018 I study a monopoly regulation in the setting where consumers can engage in demand-reducing investments. I first
More informationFirms and returns to scale -1- John Riley
Firms and returns to scale -1- John Riley Firms and returns to scale. Increasing returns to scale and monopoly pricing 2. Natural monopoly 1 C. Constant returns to scale 21 D. The CRS economy 26 E. pplication
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 informationAnswer Key: Problem Set 1
Answer Key: Problem Set 1 Econ 409 018 Fall Question 1 a The profit function (revenue minus total cost) is π(q) = P (q)q cq The first order condition with respect to (henceforth wrt) q is P (q )q + P (q
More informationOnline Appendix for Dynamic Procurement under Uncertainty: Optimal Design and Implications for Incomplete Contracts
Online Appendix for Dynamic Procurement under Uncertainty: Optimal Design and Implications for Incomplete Contracts By Malin Arve and David Martimort I. Concavity and Implementability Conditions In this
More informationPrincipal-Agent model: Hidden Information
Principal-Agent model: Hidden Information Laont-Martimort, ch 2,3 Agent is the producer who will produce q units of the good for the principal rm-regulator or worker - employer Principal's utility is V
More informationAdvanced Microeconomic Analysis, Lecture 6
Advanced Microeconomic Analysis, Lecture 6 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO April 10, 017 Administrative Stuff Homework # is due at the end of class. I will post the solutions on the website later today. The midterm
More informationFirms and returns to scale -1- Firms and returns to scale
Firms and returns to scale -1- Firms and returns to scale. Increasing returns to scale and monopoly pricing 2. Constant returns to scale 19 C. The CRS economy 25 D. pplication to trade 47 E. Decreasing
More informationKatz and Shapiro (1985)
Katz and Shapiro (1985) 1 The paper studies the compatibility choice of competing firms in industries with network externalities. Also investigated are the social vs. private incentives of compatibility
More informationHidden information. Principal s payoff: π (e) w,
Hidden information Section 14.C. in MWG We still consider a setting with information asymmetries between the principal and agent. However, the effort is now perfectly observable. What is unobservable?
More informationIEOR 151 Lecture 11 Adverse Selection
IEOR 151 Lecture 11 Adverse Selection 1 Sandwich Example Consider the following hypothetical situation A company is holding a picnic and would like to purchase grilled cheese sandwiches with tomatoes and
More informationMechanism design and allocation algorithms for energy-network markets with piece-wise linear costs and quadratic externalities
1 / 45 Mechanism design and allocation algorithms for energy-network markets with piece-wise linear costs and quadratic externalities Alejandro Jofré 1 Center for Mathematical Modeling & DIM Universidad
More informationSecond Welfare Theorem
Second Welfare Theorem Econ 2100 Fall 2015 Lecture 18, November 2 Outline 1 Second Welfare Theorem From Last Class We want to state a prove a theorem that says that any Pareto optimal allocation is (part
More informationPrincipal - Agent model under screening
Principal - Agent model under screening Microeconomics 2 Presentation: Guillaume Pommey, Slides: Bernard Caillaud Master APE - Paris School of Economics March 9 (Lecture 10 and March 13 (Lecture 11, 2017
More informationMechanism Design: Dominant Strategies
May 20, 2014 Some Motivation Previously we considered the problem of matching workers with firms We considered some different institutions for tackling the incentive problem arising from asymmetric information
More informationWARWICK ECONOMIC RESEARCH PAPERS
Regulating a Monopolist with unknown costs and unknown quality capacity Charles Blackorby and Dezsö Szalay No 858 WARWICK ECONOMIC RESEARCH PAPERS DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS Regulating a Monopolist with unknown
More informationPart I: Exercise of Monopoly Power. Chapter 1: Monopoly. Two assumptions: A1. Quality of goods is known by consumers; A2. No price discrimination.
Part I: Exercise of Monopoly Power Chapter 1: Monopoly Two assumptions: A1. Quality of goods is known by consumers; A2. No price discrimination. Best known monopoly distortion: p>mc DWL (section 1). Other
More informationControlling versus enabling Online appendix
Controlling versus enabling Online appendix Andrei Hagiu and Julian Wright September, 017 Section 1 shows the sense in which Proposition 1 and in Section 4 of the main paper hold in a much more general
More informationMechanism Design II. Terence Johnson. University of Notre Dame. Terence Johnson (ND) Mechanism Design II 1 / 30
Mechanism Design II Terence Johnson University of Notre Dame Terence Johnson (ND) Mechanism Design II 1 / 30 Mechanism Design Recall: game theory takes the players/actions/payoffs as given, and makes predictions
More informationLecture Slides - Part 4
Lecture Slides - Part 4 Bengt Holmstrom MIT February 2, 2016. Bengt Holmstrom (MIT) Lecture Slides - Part 4 February 2, 2016. 1 / 65 Mechanism Design n agents i = 1,..., n agent i has type θ i Θ i which
More informationGame Theory, Information, Incentives
Game Theory, Information, Incentives Ronald Wendner Department of Economics Graz University, Austria Course # 320.501: Analytical Methods (part 6) The Moral Hazard Problem Moral hazard as a problem of
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 informationGame Theory. Monika Köppl-Turyna. Winter 2017/2018. Institute for Analytical Economics Vienna University of Economics and Business
Monika Köppl-Turyna Institute for Analytical Economics Vienna University of Economics and Business Winter 2017/2018 Static Games of Incomplete Information Introduction So far we assumed that payoff functions
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 informationMoral Hazard: Hidden Action
Moral Hazard: Hidden Action Part of these Notes were taken (almost literally) from Rasmusen, 2007 UIB Course 2013-14 (UIB) MH-Hidden Actions Course 2013-14 1 / 29 A Principal-agent Model. The Production
More informationTeoria das organizações e contratos
Teoria das organizações e contratos Chapter 6: Adverse Selection with two types Mestrado Profissional em Economia 3 o trimestre 2015 EESP (FGV) Teoria das organizações e contratos 3 o trimestre 2015 1
More informationAdvanced Microeconomics
Advanced Microeconomics ECON5200 - Fall 2012 Introduction What you have done: - consumers maximize their utility subject to budget constraints and firms maximize their profits given technology and market
More informationRegulating a Monopolist With Uncertain Costs Without Transfers
Regulating a Monopolist With Uncertain Costs Without Transfers Manuel Amador Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Kyle Bagwell Stanford University November 5, 206 Abstract We analyze the Baron and Myerson
More informationIn the Name of God. Sharif University of Technology. Microeconomics 1. Graduate School of Management and Economics. Dr. S.
In the Name of God Sharif University of Technology Graduate School of Management and Economics Microeconomics 1 44715 (1396-97 1 st term) - Group 1 Dr. S. Farshad Fatemi Chapter 10: Competitive Markets
More informationDifferentiable Welfare Theorems Existence of a Competitive Equilibrium: Preliminaries
Differentiable Welfare Theorems Existence of a Competitive Equilibrium: Preliminaries Econ 2100 Fall 2017 Lecture 19, November 7 Outline 1 Welfare Theorems in the differentiable case. 2 Aggregate excess
More information1.1 A Simple Model of Price Discrimination Full Information Benchmark: First-Best Outcome or Perfect Price
Contract Theory Contents 1 Hidden Information: Screening 6 1.1 A Simple Model of Price Discrimination................... 8 1.1.1 Full Information Benchmark: First-Best Outcome or Perfect Price Discrimination.............................
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 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 informationDuopoly and Project Uncertainty
Duopoly and Project Uncertainty An analysis of the Bertrand and Cournot duopolies under uncertainty for the buyer Draft Master Thesis Rik Bos Student 345327 June 2016 Erasmus School of Economics Master
More informationSupplementary material to Procurement with specialized firms
Supplementary material to Procurement with specialized firms Jan Boone and Christoph Schottmüller January 27, 2014 In this supplementary material, we relax some of the assumptions made in the paper and
More informationGame Theory and Economics of Contracts Lecture 5 Static Single-agent Moral Hazard Model
Game Theory and Economics of Contracts Lecture 5 Static Single-agent Moral Hazard Model Yu (Larry) Chen School of Economics, Nanjing University Fall 2015 Principal-Agent Relationship Principal-agent relationship
More informationExternalities and PG. MWG- Chapter 11
Externalities and PG MWG- Chapter 11 Simple Bilateral Externality When external e ects are present, CE are not PO. Assume: 1 Two consumers i = 1, 2 2 The actions of these consumers do not a ect prices
More informationThe New Keynesian Model
The New Keynesian Model Basic Issues Roberto Chang Rutgers January 2013 R. Chang (Rutgers) New Keynesian Model January 2013 1 / 22 Basic Ingredients of the New Keynesian Paradigm Representative agent paradigm
More informationOn revealed preferences in oligopoly games
University of Manchester, UK November 25, 2010 Introduction Suppose we make a finite set of observations T = {1,..., m}, m 1, of a perfectly homogeneous-good oligopoly market. There is a finite number
More informationTechnical Appendix for: Complementary Goods: Creating, Capturing and Competing for Value
Technical Appendix for: Complementary Goods: Creating, Capturing and Competing for Value February, 203 A Simultaneous Quality Decisions In the non-integrated case without royalty fees, the analysis closely
More informationContracts in informed-principal problems with moral hazard
Contracts in informed-principal problems with moral hazard Nicholas C Bedard January 20, 2016 Abstract In many cases, an employer has private information about the potential productivity of a worker, who
More informationEconS Microeconomic Theory II Midterm Exam #2 - Answer Key
EconS 50 - Microeconomic Theory II Midterm Exam # - Answer Key 1. Revenue comparison in two auction formats. Consider a sealed-bid auction with bidders. Every bidder i privately observes his valuation
More informationInformed Principal in Private-Value Environments
Informed Principal in Private-Value Environments Tymofiy Mylovanov Thomas Tröger University of Bonn June 21, 2008 1/28 Motivation 2/28 Motivation In most applications of mechanism design, the proposer
More informationRegulating a Monopolist With Uncertain Costs Without Transfers
Regulating a Monopolist With Uncertain Costs Without Transfers Manuel Amador Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Kyle Bagwell Stanford University October 2, 204 Abstract We analyze the Baron and Myerson
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 informationRegional Market Power and Transport Capacity in the Gas Industry
Regional Market Power and Transport Capacity in the Gas Industry F. Gasmi Université de Toulouse (IDEI, GREMAQ) J.J. Laffont Université de Toulouse (IDEI, GREMAQ) and J.D. Oviedo Université de Toulouse
More informationEconomic Growth: Lecture 7, Overlapping Generations
14.452 Economic Growth: Lecture 7, Overlapping Generations Daron Acemoglu MIT November 17, 2009. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 7 November 17, 2009. 1 / 54 Growth with Overlapping Generations
More informationMonopolistic Competition when Income Matters
Monopolistic Competition when Income Matters Paolo Bertoletti and Federico tro University of Pavia and Ca Foscari University, Venice Hitotsubashi University, March 6, 2014 Purpose We propose an alternative
More informationFINM6900 Finance Theory Noisy Rational Expectations Equilibrium for Multiple Risky Assets
FINM69 Finance Theory Noisy Rational Expectations Equilibrium for Multiple Risky Assets February 3, 212 Reference Anat R. Admati, A Noisy Rational Expectations Equilibrium for Multi-Asset Securities Markets,
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 informationConsumer Standards as a Strategic Device to Mitigate Ratchet Effects in Dynamic Regulation
Consumer Standards as a Strategic Device to Mitigate Ratchet Effects in Dynamic Regulation Raffaele Fiocco and Roland Strausz September 24, 2012 Abstract Strategic delegation to an independent regulator
More informationMoral Hazard: Part 1. April 9, 2018
Moral Hazard: Part 1 April 9, 2018 Introduction In a standard moral hazard problem, the agent A is characterized by only one type. As with adverse selection, the principal P wants to engage in an economic
More informationA Contract for Demand Response based on Probability of Call
A Contract for Demand Response based on Probability of Call Jose Vuelvas, Fredy Ruiz and Giambattista Gruosso Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Politecnico di Milano 2018 1 2 Outline Introduction Problem
More informationMechanism Design: Bayesian Incentive Compatibility
May 30, 2013 Setup X : finite set of public alternatives X = {x 1,..., x K } Θ i : the set of possible types for player i, F i is the marginal distribution of θ i. We assume types are independently distributed.
More informationPublic Provision of Scarce Resources when Preferences are Non-Linear
Public Provision of Scarce Resources when Preferences are Non-Linear Katharina Huesmann February 13, 2017 Abstract This paper considers the problem of assigning an indivisible good of limited availability
More informationRalph s Strategic Disclosure 1
Ralph s Strategic Disclosure Ralph manages a firm that operates in a duopoly Both Ralph s (privatevalue) production cost and (common-value) inverse demand are uncertain Ralph s (constant marginal) production
More informationIndustrial Organization, Fall 2011: Midterm Exam Solutions and Comments Date: Wednesday October
Industrial Organization, Fall 2011: Midterm Exam Solutions and Comments Date: Wednesday October 23 2011 1 Scores The exam was long. I know this. Final grades will definitely be curved. Here is a rough
More information1 Web Appendix: Equilibrium outcome under collusion (multiple types-multiple contracts)
1 Web Appendix: Equilibrium outcome under collusion (multiple types-multiple contracts) We extend our setup by allowing more than two types of agent. The agent s type is now β {β 1, β 2,..., β N }, where
More informationPlatform Competition under Asymmetric Information preliminary
Platform Competition under Asymmetric Information preliminary Hanna Ha laburda Harvard University Yaron Yehezkel Tel Aviv University January 31, 2011 Abstract In the context of platform competition in
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 informationAre Two a Good Representative for Many?
Are Two a Good Representative for Many? RUDOLF KERSCHBAMER and NINA MADERNER Abstract This paper studies a discrete formulation of the screening model with typedependent reservation utilities. It closes
More informationWhat is Screening? Economics of Information and Contracts Screening: General Models. Monopolistic Screening: A More General Model.
Economics of Information and Contracts Screening: General Models Levent Koçkesen Koç University Levent Koçkesen (Koç University) Screening 1 / 58 What is Screening? A contracting problem with Hidden Information
More informationMathematical Appendix. Ramsey Pricing
Mathematical Appendix Ramsey Pricing PROOF OF THEOREM : I maximize social welfare V subject to π > K. The Lagrangian is V + κπ K the associated first-order conditions are that for each I + κ P I C I cn
More informationThis is designed for one 75-minute lecture using Games and Information. October 3, 2006
This is designed for one 75-minute lecture using Games and Information. October 3, 2006 1 7 Moral Hazard: Hidden Actions PRINCIPAL-AGENT MODELS The principal (or uninformed player) is the player who has
More informationSolution: Since the prices are decreasing, we consider all the nested options {1,..., i}. Given such a set, the expected revenue is.
Problem 1: Choice models and assortment optimization Consider a MNL choice model over five products with prices (p1,..., p5) = (7, 6, 4, 3, 2) and preference weights (i.e., MNL parameters) (v1,..., v5)
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 informationInducing Efficiency in Oligopolistic Markets with. Increasing Returns to Scale
Inducing Efficiency in Oligopolistic Markets with Increasing Returns to Scale Abhijit Sengupta and Yair Tauman February 6, 24 Abstract We consider a Cournot Oligopoly market of firms possessing increasing
More informationCompetitive Equilibrium
Competitive Equilibrium Econ 2100 Fall 2017 Lecture 16, October 26 Outline 1 Pareto Effi ciency 2 The Core 3 Planner s Problem(s) 4 Competitive (Walrasian) Equilibrium Decentralized vs. Centralized Economic
More informationMonopoly, Pareto and Ramsey Mark-ups
J Ind Compet Trade (2009) 9:57 63 DOI 10.1007/s10842-008-0030-5 Monopoly, Pareto and Ramsey Mark-ups Thijs ten Raa Received: 28 November 2007 / Revised: 23 December 2007 / Accepted: 14 January 2008 / Published
More informationMicroeconomic Theory -1- Introduction
Microeconomic Theory -- Introduction. Introduction. Profit maximizing firm with monopoly power 6 3. General results on maximizing with two variables 8 4. Model of a private ownership economy 5. Consumer
More informationBayesian Games and Mechanism Design Definition of Bayes Equilibrium
Bayesian Games and Mechanism Design Definition of Bayes Equilibrium Harsanyi [1967] What happens when players do not know one another s payoffs? Games of incomplete information versus games of imperfect
More informationNoncooperative Games, Couplings Constraints, and Partial Effi ciency
Noncooperative Games, Couplings Constraints, and Partial Effi ciency Sjur Didrik Flåm University of Bergen, Norway Background Customary Nash equilibrium has no coupling constraints. Here: coupling constraints
More informationMonopoly with Resale. Supplementary Material
Monopoly with Resale Supplementary Material Giacomo Calzolari Alessandro Pavan October 2006 1 1 Restriction to price offers in the resale ultimatum bargaining game In the model set up, we assume that in
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 informationInternet Peering, Capacity and Pricing
Internet Peering, Capacity and Pricing Haim Mendelson Shiri Shneorson June, 2003 Abstract We analyze peering on the Internet with consumer delay costs, finding that they have a substantial effect on market
More informationScreening. Diego Moreno Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Diego Moreno () Screening 1 / 1
Screening Diego Moreno Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Diego Moreno () Screening 1 / 1 The Agency Problem with Adverse Selection A risk neutral principal wants to o er a menu of contracts to be o ered
More informationSelling Experiments. Dirk Bergemann 1 Alessandro Bonatti 2 Alex Smolin 1. BFI Chicago July 10th, Yale University.
Selling Experiments Dirk Bergemann 1 Alessandro Bonatti 2 Alex Smolin 1 1 Yale University 2 MIT Sloan BFI Chicago July 10th, 2015 Introduction A decision maker under uncertainty: has partial (private)
More informationEndogenous information acquisition
Endogenous information acquisition ECON 101 Benhabib, Liu, Wang (2008) Endogenous information acquisition Benhabib, Liu, Wang 1 / 55 The Baseline Mode l The economy is populated by a large representative
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 informationEconomics 101 Lecture 5 - Firms and Production
Economics 101 Lecture 5 - Firms and Production 1 The Second Welfare Theorem Last week we proved the First Basic Welfare Theorem, which states that under fairly weak assumptions, a Walrasian equilibrium
More informationEconomics Discussion Paper Series EDP A new look at the classical Bertrand duopoly
Economics Discussion Paper Series EDP-1702 A new look at the classical Bertrand duopoly Rabah Amir Igor V. Evstigneev February 2017 Economics School of Social Sciences The University of Manchester Manchester
More information