1 / 74

Chapter Thirty-One

Chapter Thirty-One. Welfare. Social Choice. Different economic states will be preferred by different individuals. How can individual preferences be “aggregated” into a social preference over all possible economic states?. Aggregating Preferences.

sakina
Télécharger la présentation

Chapter Thirty-One

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter Thirty-One Welfare

  2. Social Choice • Different economic states will be preferred by different individuals. • How can individual preferences be “aggregated” into a social preference over all possible economic states?

  3. Aggregating Preferences • x, y, z denote different economic states. • 3 agents; Bill, Bertha and Bob. • Use simple majority voting to decide a state?

  4. Aggregating Preferences More preferred Less preferred

  5. Aggregating Preferences Majority Vote Results x beats y

  6. Aggregating Preferences Majority Vote Results x beats y y beats z

  7. Aggregating Preferences Majority Vote Results x beats y y beats z z beats x

  8. Aggregating Preferences Majority Vote Results No socially best alternative! x beats y y beats z z beats x

  9. Aggregating Preferences Majority Vote Results No socially best alternative! x beats y y beats z z beats x Majority voting does not always aggregate transitive individual preferences into a transitive social preference.

  10. Aggregating Preferences

  11. Aggregating Preferences Rank-order vote results (low score wins).

  12. Aggregating Preferences Rank-order vote results (low score wins). x-score = 6

  13. Aggregating Preferences Rank-order vote results (low score wins). x-score = 6 y-score = 6

  14. Aggregating Preferences Rank-order vote results (low score wins). x-score = 6 y-score = 6 z-score = 6

  15. Aggregating Preferences Rank-order vote results (low score wins). No state is selected! x-score = 6 y-score = 6 z-score = 6

  16. Aggregating Preferences Rank-order vote results (low score wins). No state is selected! x-score = 6 y-score = 6 z-score = 6 Rank-order voting is indecisive in this case.

  17. Manipulating Preferences • As well, most voting schemes are manipulable. • I.e. one individual can cast an “untruthful” vote to improve the social outcome for himself. • Again consider rank-order voting.

  18. Manipulating Preferences These are truthful preferences.

  19. Manipulating Preferences These are truthful preferences. Bob introduces a new alternative

  20. Manipulating Preferences These are truthful preferences. Bob introduces a new alternative

  21. Manipulating Preferences These are truthful preferences. Bob introduces a new alternative and then lies.

  22. Manipulating Preferences These are truthful preferences. Bob introduces a new alternative and then lies. Rank-order vote results. x-score = 8

  23. Manipulating Preferences These are truthful preferences. Bob introduces a new alternative and then lies. Rank-order vote results. x-score = 8 y-score = 7

  24. Manipulating Preferences These are truthful preferences. Bob introduces a new alternative and then lies. Rank-order vote results. x-score = 8 y-score = 7 z-score = 6

  25. Manipulating Preferences These are truthful preferences. Bob introduces a new alternative and then lies. Rank-order vote results. x-score = 8 y-score = 7 z-score = 6 -score = 9 z wins!!

  26. Desirable Voting Rule Properties • 1. If all individuals’ preferences are complete, reflexive and transitive, then so should be the social preference created by the voting rule. • 2. If all individuals rank x before y then so should the voting rule. • 3. Social preference between x and y should depend on individuals’ preferences between x and y only.

  27. Desirable Voting Rule Properties • Kenneth Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem: The only voting rule with all of properties 1, 2 and 3 is dictatorial.

  28. Desirable Voting Rule Properties • Kenneth Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem: The only voting rule with all of properties 1, 2 and 3 is dictatorial. • Implication is that a nondictatorial voting rule requires giving up at least one of properties 1, 2 or 3.

  29. Social Welfare Functions • 1. If all individuals’ preferences are complete, reflexive and transitive, then so should be the social preference created by the voting rule. • 2. If all individuals rank x before y then so should the voting rule. • 3. Social preference between x and y should depend on individuals’ preferences between x and y only.

  30. Social Welfare Functions • 1. If all individuals’ preferences are complete, reflexive and transitive, then so should be the social preference created by the voting rule. • 2. If all individuals rank x before y then so should the voting rule. • 3. Social preference between x and y should depend on individuals’ preferences between x and y only. Give up which one of these?

  31. Social Welfare Functions • 1. If all individuals’ preferences are complete, reflexive and transitive, then so should be the social preference created by the voting rule. • 2. If all individuals rank x before y then so should the voting rule. • 3. Social preference between x and y should depend on individuals’ preferences between x and y only. Give up which one of these?

  32. Social Welfare Functions • 1. If all individuals’ preferences are complete, reflexive and transitive, then so should be the social preference created by the voting rule. • 2. If all individuals rank x before y then so should the voting rule. There is a variety of voting procedures with both properties 1 and 2.

  33. Social Welfare Functions • ui(x) is individual i’s utility from overall allocation x.

  34. Social Welfare Functions • ui(x) is individual i’s utility from overall allocation x. • Utilitarian:

  35. Social Welfare Functions • ui(x) is individual i’s utility from overall allocation x. • Utilitarian: • Weighted-sum:

  36. Social Welfare Functions • ui(x) is individual i’s utility from overall allocation x. • Utilitarian: • Weighted-sum: • Minimax:

  37. Social Welfare Functions • Suppose social welfare depends only on individuals’ own allocations, instead of overall allocations. • I.e. individual utility is ui(xi), rather than ui(x). • Then social welfare iswhere is an increasing function.

  38. Social Optima & Efficiency • Any social optimal allocation must be Pareto optimal. • Why?

  39. Social Optima & Efficiency • Any social optimal allocation must be Pareto optimal. • Why? • If not, then somebody’s utility can be increased without reducing anyone else’s utility; i.e. social suboptimality  inefficiency.

  40. Utility Possibilities OB 0 0 OA

  41. Utility Possibilities OB 0 0 OA

  42. Utility Possibilities OB 0 0 OA

  43. Utility Possibilities OB 0 0 OA

  44. Utility Possibilities OB 0 0 OA

  45. Utility Possibilities OB 0 0 OA

  46. Utility Possibilities Utility possibility frontier (upf) OB 0 0 OA

  47. Utility Possibilities Utility possibility frontier (upf) OB 0 0 Utility possibility set OA

  48. Social Optima & Efficiency Upf is the set of efficient utility pairs.

  49. Social Optima & Efficiency Upf is the set of efficient utility pairs. Social indifference curves

  50. Social Optima & Efficiency Upf is the set of efficient utility pairs. Higher social welfare Social indifference curves

More Related