Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction to
key concepts
Introduction
4
Power is the ability to do and get the things we want in opposition to the
intentions of others.
Interactions between economic actors can result in mutual gains, but also in
conflicts over how the gains are distributed.
Obviously, the capabilities of the players is important, but the rules can change
the type of characteristics and capabilities that are legitimately rewarded
Changing the rules can affect economic incentives for certain kinds of
behaviour.
Power: The ability to do and get the things we want in opposition to the
intentions of others.
– It may impose or threaten to impose heavy costs: Unless the other party acts
in a way that benefits the person with power ( eg slavery)
Institutions such as trade unions and the right to vote for workers,
gave wage earners the bargaining power to raise wages substantially.
9
Introduction to
efficiency and equity
Economic allocation
10
■ Once the whole pie is allocated, it is impossible to make someone better off,
without taking from another
■ A very unequal distribution of food – even one that means some people will
starve while others are eating very well – can be Pareto efficient as long as
all the food is eaten by a person who wants to eat, and none is thrown away.
Suppose that we want to compare two possible allocations, A and B, that may
result from an economic interaction.
This criterion for judging between A and B is called the Pareto criterion, after
Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist and sociologist.
A C
B D
Feasible allocations
Payoffs in the pesticide game
B
Evaluating outcomes with Pareto-criteria
■ Pareto efficient: An allocation with the property that there is no
feasible alternative allocation in which at least one person would be
better off (prefer more), and nobody worse off (prefer less)
■ A Pareto-dominates D.
A and B are walking down the street. They both spot a R100 note,
which A picks up and offers one cent to B.
What if A has just lost her job and is homeless while B is well off?
1. Adopt the principle that fairness applies to all people, regardless of who
they are.
3. From behind this veil of ignorance, we can make a judgement and design
institutions that are regarded as fair, regardless of which person we are.
20
A model of choice
and conflict
Model of choice and conflict
21
We are going to look at economic interactions, their resulting allocations, and how these change,
when the rules of the game change
– Initially, Angela works the land on her own, and gets everything she produces.
– Next, we introduce a second person, who does not farm, but would also like some of the
harvest. He is called Bruno.
– At first, Bruno can rule by force: Angela is compelled to work for him. In order to survive, she
has to do what he says.
– Later, the rules change: the rule of law replaces the rule of force. Bruno can no longer coerce
Angela to work. But he owns the land and if she wants to farm his land, she must agree, for
example, to pay him some part of the harvest.
– Eventually, the rules of the game change again in Angela’s favour. She and her fellow farmers
achieve the right to vote and legislation is passed that increases Angela’s claim on the harvest.
We will analyse the changes in terms of both Pareto efficiency and the distribution of income
between Angela and Bruno.
– Remember that we can determine objectively whether an outcome is Pareto efficient or not.
– But whether the outcome is fair depends on your own analysis of the problem, using the
concepts of substantive and procedural fairness.
Technology and preferences in the model
22
Angela works the land for a number of hours each day and enjoys the
remainder of the day as free time.
She values grain, but she also enjoys (and so values)free time. Depending on
her preferences she has a choice between free time and work/grain
0
0 24
Angela’s hours of free time
Indifference Curves
25
The steeper the indifference curve, the more Angela values free time
relative to grain
The more free-time she has (moving to the right), the flatter the curves
—she values free time less (and will not be prepared to give up as
much grain as before for an extra unit of grain). (MRS is lower)
When Angela has less free time the indifference curves are steeper (as
she will willingly give up more grain per unit of free time gained) (MRS
is higher)
Angela as an independent farmer
Choice meets technology
The best Angela can do,
given the limits set by the
12 Angela’s
feasible frontier, is to work
indifference
set
for 8 hours, taking 16
hours of free time and
producing 9 bushels of
9
C grain.
Bushels of grain
0
0 16 24
Angela’s hours of free time
27
Introducing
Coercion and conflict
into the model of choice
Enter Bruno!!!!
28
We will study different rules of the game that explain how much is
produced by Angela, and how it is divided between her and Bruno.
Angela produces grain
Feasible frontier
Angela and Bruno
combined
0
Angela’s free time Angela’s work
0 12 24
Angela’s hours of free time
Bruno takes half!
Bruno gets
consumption.
5.25 E
What
Feasible frontier
Angela
Angela and Bruno
gets
combined
0
Angela’s free time Angela’s work
0 12 24
12
11 G Angela works for about 18 hours (with 6 hours of
10.5 free time) and receives about 7 bushels of grain and
Bruno get about 4 bushels of grain
G
7 H Angela works 12 hours a day and
Bushels of grain
If Angela does not work the land, Bruno gets nothing (there are no
other prospective farmers that he can exploit).
Technically
feasible set
With the help of his gun, Bruno can choose any point in the lens-shaped
technically feasible set of allocations. But which will he choose?
The amount that Bruno will get if he implements this strategy is his
economic rent, meaning the amount he gets over what he would get if
Angela were not his slave (zero) i.e. the amount above his next best
alternative (or reservation option)
BRUNO’S CHOICE At high working
36
hours the survival
frontier becomes
Bruno can command Angela
steeper
to work
Bruno can choose any allocation in If Bruno makes
the technically feasible set. Angela work for more
than 11 hours, the
amount he can take
falls as working hours
The maximum distance increase.
between frontiers
The vertical distance between the
feasible frontier and the biological
survival constraint is greatest when
Angela works for 11 hours (13 hours
of free time).
The slopes of the feasible frontier and the survival constraint (the
MRT and MRS) also help us to find the number of hours where
Bruno can take the maximum amount of grain.
Property rights
and competing
claims
Introducing law and private property
40
Previously Bruno enforced his will be force and his gun. Now assume,
the institutions have changed and Bruno is the property owner
Bruno now owns the land, and Angela must have permission to use his
property.
Bruno can offer a contract allowing her to farm the land and give him
part of the harvest in return.
But the law requires that exchange is voluntary: Angela can refuse the
offer.
If he makes an offer that is just a tiny bit better for Angela than not
working at all and getting subsistence rations, she will accept it.
Angela’s reservation indifference curve
41
With the new law, the limitation is not Angela’s survival, but rather her
agreement.
Angela values her free time, so the more hours Bruno offers her to work,
the more he is going to have to pay.
Point Z in Figure 5.6 is the allocation in which Angela does no work and
gets only survival rations (from the government, or perhaps her family).
This is her reservation option (If she refuses Bruno’s offer, she has this
option as a backup.)
As long as Bruno gets some of the crop he will do better than if there
is no deal.
As long as Angela’s share makes her better off than she would have
been if she took her reservation option, taking account of her work
hours, she will also benefit.
This potential for mutual gain is why their exchange need not take
place at the point of a gun, but can be motivated by the desire of both
to be better off.
All of the allocations that represent mutual gains are shown in the
economically feasible set in the Figure 5.6.
Mutual gains do not mean that the parties will benefit equally
This will be where the MRT on the feasible frontier is equal to the MRS
on the reservation indifference curve.
figure 5.7a shows that this allocation requires Angela to work for
fewer hours than she did under coercion.
46
What will Bruno and Angela agree?
47
Bruno would like Angela to work for 8 hours and give him
4.5 bushels of grain (allocation D).
If Angela has to pay 4.5 bushels (CD) then she will choose to produce
at point C, where she works for 8 hours.
If Angela chose any other point on the feasible frontier and then gave
Bruno 4.5 bushels, she would have lower utility—she would be below
her reservation indifference curve.
Bringing together important concepts
48
Bruno offers a contract in which Angela pays him 4.5 bushels to rent
the land. She works for 8 hours, where the MRT is equal to the MRS on
her reservation indifference curve.
If Angela works more or less than 8 hours, the joint surplus is less than
4.5 bushels.
Although Bruno cannot coerce Angela he can get the whole surplus (as
Angela is on the indifference curve she receives 4,5 bushels but no
surplus or economic rent).
50
Impacts of adjustments in the framework
51
If there is less land available the feasible frontier shifts down. Why?
If the land is more productive, for example, due to good rainfall the
feasible frontier shifts up. Why?
If the food produced is more nutritious and the grower needs to eat
less to survive then the biological survival constraint shifts down. Why?
The peak of the hump of the surplus for Bruno (4,5 bushels) is lower
when Angela can refuse, compared to when Bruno could order her to
work (6 bushels).
For Angela coercion means she works 11 hours a day and gets 4
bushels of grain
For Angela agreement means she works 8 hours a day and gets 4,5
bushels of grain
Pareto improvement vs mutual benefit vs zero sum game 53
Pareto improvement
a change that benefits at least one person without making anyone else
worse off
e.g. Bruno benefits but Angela is no worse off along the reservation
indifference curve
Mutual Gains
e.g. for Angela this is anywhere in the economically feasible set ABOVE
the reservation indifference curve
Zero-sum game
Firstly: all the grain produced is shared i.e. no Pareto improvement can
be achieved simply by changing the amounts of grain they each
consume. If one consumed more, the other would have to have less.
(zero-sum game)
When Angela is free and works her own land she chooses to work
for 8 hours and produces 9 bushels of grain
When Angela must pay rent to Bruno she works for 8 hours and
produces 9 bushels of grain
When Angela is free and independent she keeps the surplus of 4,5
bushels for herself
When she must pay rent to Bruno, Angela pays the surplus of 4,5
bushels to Bruno
Angela Independent vs Angela renting from Bruno
56
Pareto Efficiency Curve
57
Point D is the outcome when Angela rents the land from Bruno.
CD is called the Pareto efficiency curve: it joins together all the points in
the feasible set for which MRS = MRT. (sometimes called the contract
curve)
At point D Angela gets none of the surplus, at point C Angela gets it all.
Angela and her fellow farm workers lobby for a new law that limits
working time to 4 hours a day, while requiring that total pay is at least
4,5 bushels. They threaten not to work at all unless the law is passed.
Angela could also do better than F e.g. she would prefer any
allocation on the Pareto efficiency curve between C and G.
Step 1:
Step 2:
Bargaining power
Institutions
Reservation option
Allocation
Biology (outcome):
Economically who does
Technically feasible feasible allocations what & who
allocations
gets what
Technology
Preferences
Conclusion: the moral of the story
66
The same is true when people directly exchange, or buy and sell,
goods for money.
Suppose you have more apples than you can consume, and your
neighbour has an abundance of pears. The apples are worth less to
you than to your neighbour, and the pears are worth more to you. So
it must be possible to achieve a Pareto improvement by exchanging
some apples and pears. (This insight will be studied in the macro
semester when we discuss international trade.)