• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

Mechanism Design and Social Choice Part II:

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Aktie "Mechanism Design and Social Choice Part II:"

Copied!
1
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

Mechanism Design and Social Choice Part II:

Problem Set 3

Problem 1 Consider a quasi-linear environment with one agent:I = 1.The type-space is discrete Θ = 1, θ2, . . . , θN} where θ1 θ2 . . . θN. The set of alternatives is X= [0,1]×R with elements (q, t). The payoff of the agent with typeθ when alternative (q, t) is chosen, is given by u((q, t), θ) = θv(q) +t. Assume that v is twice continuously differentiable withv(0) = 0,v0(q)>0 andv00(q)<0 for allq∈[0,1]. For a given allocation ruleq : Θ[0,1], let ¯v(θ) =v(q(θ)).

1. Let (q(θ), t(θ)) be an incentive compatible social choice function. Show that ¯v is non-decreasing inθ.

2. Show that all incentive compatibility constraints are satisfied if the followinglocal constraints are satisfied for all k= 1, . . . , N1:

Uk, θk+1) = ¯v(θk+1k+ ¯t(θk+1)≤Uk), (IC(k,k+1)) Uk+1, θk) = ¯v(θkk+1+ ¯t(θk)≤Uk+1). (IC(k+1,k)) 3. Show that IC(k-1,k) is fulfilled if IC(k,k-1) holds with equality and that IC(k,k-1) is

fulfilled if IC(k-1,k) holds with equality

Now suppose thatqis the quantity of a good that is produced at marginal costcby a firm. The firm offers different quantities of the good at different prices. The agent is a consumer that can choose any of these options. In other words, the consumer faces a menu of quantity-price pairs (q1, t1),(q2, t2), . . . . Given her type θ,the consumer chooses the quantity that maximizes her utility. By the revelation principle, the firm can restrict attention to an incentive compatible menu of options (q(θ), t(θ))θΘ. (Incentive compatibility here means that for a consumer of type θ it is optimal to choose (q(θ), t(θ)).)

4. Suppose that the firm has already fixed the quantities q(θ1) q(θ2) . . .. Derive a formula for U(θ) if the firm sets t(θ1) = −θ1v(θ¯ 1) and chooses t(θk) for k > 1 such that the profit of the firm is maximized subject to incentive compatibility of (q(θ), t(θ))θΘ. (Hint: The formula is a discrete version of condition (ii) in the characterization of Bayes-Nash incentive compatible social choice functions).

5. Now consider the firm’s optimal choice ofq.LetN = 2,φ(θ1) =β, andφ(θ2) = 1−β.

Derive the optimal menu (q(θ1), t(θ1)),(q(θ2), t(θ2)) that maximizes the expected profit of the firm! Which of the quantity choicesq(θ1) andq(θ2) is efficient? Interpret!

(Use the result of part 3 in your interpretation!)

1

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

With regional trade, if a worker moves from the region with a lower number of workers to the region with a higher number of workers, intermediate good producers in both

More specifically, each isomorphic enclosure is defined via isomorphisms, and Proposition 2.6 implies that each such isomorphism has consequences not only for form components (such

Because the study’s goal is to identify the factors significant in students’ choice of the for-profit post-secondary sector, the population of interest is the students who have

Thus, in the (literal) context of the baseline model, the founding fathers should, in period −1, be indifferent between these two legislative term structures, given that choice

The area in the s 1 -s 2 space for which (13) and (14) are the schools’ relevant objective functions in the first stage is thus bounded by the following conditions: First, if

The interest in how people make decisions led some scholars to introduce time into established the- ories of behaviour, extending the theories that initially focused on

(populationlmaximum population) + (GDP per capita/rnaxirnum GDP per capita).. The issue then becomes what the appropriate ratio should be between a representative

For example, integration of the domestic economy into goods and capital world markets forces local producers to increase their efficiency in production and to