Accessible Pareto-Improvements: Using Market Information to Reform Inefficiencies

We study Pareto improvements whose implementation requires knowledge of only market prices and traded quantities, not utility and demand functions. Quantity stabilizations (for example, the Lau, Qian, and Roland model of dual-track reform) give agents the right to repeat their earlier trades and hence require policymakers to know the quantities agents previously exchanged. While reasonable in some partial equilibrium contexts, such knowledge is implausible in general equilibrium. To diminish informational requirements further, we also consider price stabilizations, which hold constant the relative prices that consumers face. Although price stabilizations do not achieve first-best efficiency, they lead to Pareto-improvements and production efficiency. Moreover, the production efficiency advantage persists under price stabilization but not under quantity stabilization when some firms are not profit-maximizes; this difference can be critical in transition policies for planned economies. In addition to planning, we consider several other applications of quantity and price stabilization, both partial equilibrium and general equilibrium: removal of rent controls, deregulation of a cross-subsidizing public utility, and the entry of an autarkic economy into world trade. Not surprisingly, the most plausible candidates for quantity or price stabilization occur in partial equilibrium settings. Finally, we discuss some difficulties specific to general equilibrium models of transition economies. When the state completely rations trades under planning, it will usually need to operate at a deficit. Under reform, the state must raise revenue to close this deficit, and that will frequently prevent quantity stabilizations from achieving a Pareto improvement. But ex ante deficits do no pose a problem for price stabilization reform strategies.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/39782/3/wp398.pd

Accessible Pareto-Improvements: Using Market Information to Reform Inefficiencies

We study Pareto improvements whose implementation requires knowledge of only market prices and traded quantities, not utility and demand functions. Quantity stabilizations (for example, the Lau, Qian, and Roland model of dual-track reform) give agents the right to repeat their earlier trades and hence require policymakers to know the quantities agents previously exchanged. While reasonable in some partial equilibrium contexts, such knowledge is implausible in general equilibrium. To diminish informational requirements further, we also consider price stabilizations, which hold constant the relative prices that consumers face. Although price stabilizations do not achieve first-best efficiency, they lead to Pareto-improvements and production efficiency. Moreover, the production efficiency advantage persists under price stabilization but not under quantity stabilization when some firms are not profit-maximizes; this difference can be critical in transition policies for planned economies. In addition to planning, we consider several other applications of quantity and price stabilization, both partial equilibrium and general equilibrium: removal of rent controls, deregulation of a cross-subsidizing public utility, and the entry of an autarkic economy into world trade. Not surprisingly, the most plausible candidates for quantity or price stabilization occur in partial equilibrium settings. Finally, we discuss some difficulties specific to general equilibrium models of transition economies. When the state completely rations trades under planning, it will usually need to operate at a deficit. Under reform, the state must raise revenue to close this deficit, and that will frequently prevent quantity stabilizations from achieving a Pareto improvement. But ex ante deficits do no pose a problem for price stabilization reform strategies.Pareto improvements, transition policy, dual-track reforms, international trade, rent control, deregulation

Compromises Between Cardinality and Ordinality in Preference Theory and Social Choice

By taking sets of utility functions as a primitive description of agents, we define an ordering over assumptions on utility functions that gauges their implicit measurement requirements. Cardinal and ordinal assumptions constitute two types of measurement requirements, but several standard assumptions in economics lie between these extremes. We first apply the ordering to different theories for why consumer preferences should be convex and show that diminishing marginal utility, which for complete preferences implies convexity, is an example of a compromise between cardinality and ordinality. In contrast, the Arrow-Koopmans theory of convexity, although proposed as an ordinal theory, relies on utility functions that lie in the cardinal measurement class. In a second application, we show that diminishing marginal utility, rather than the standard stronger assumption of cardinality, also justifies utilitarian recommendations on redistribution and axiomatizes the Pigou-Dalton principle. We also show that transitivity and order-density (but not completeness) characterize the ordinal preferences that can be induced from sets of utility functions, present a general cardinality theorem for additively separable preferences, and provide sufficient conditions for orderings of assumptions on utility functions to be acyclic and transitive.Cardinal utility, ordinal utility, measurement theory, utilitarianism

Compromises between Cardinality and Ordinality in Preference Theory and Social Choice

By taking sets of utility functions as a primitive description of agents, we define an ordering over assumptions on utility functions that gauges their implicit measurement requirements. Cardinal and ordinal assumptions constitute two types of measurement requirements, but several standard assumptions in economics lie between these extremes. We first apply the ordering to different theories for why consumer preferences should be convex and show that diminishing marginal utility, which for complete preferences implies convexity, is an example of a compromise between cardinality and ordinality. In contrast, the Arrow-Koopmans theory of convexity, although proposed as an ordinal theory, relies on utility functions that lie in the cardinal measurement class. In a second application, we show that diminishing marginal utility, rather than the standard stronger assumption of cardinality, also justifies utilitarian recommendations on redistribution and axiomatizes the Pigou-Dalton principle. We also show that transitivity and order-density (but not completeness) characterize the ordinal preferences that can be induced from sets of utility functions, present a general cardinality theorem for additively separable preferences, and provide sufficient conditions for orderings of assumptions on utility functions to be acyclic and transitive

A Million Answers to Twenty Questions: Choosing by Checklist

Many decision models in marketing science and psychology assume that a consumer chooses by proceeding sequentially through a checklist of desirable properties. These models are contrasted to the utility maximization model of rationality in economics. We show on the contrary that the two approaches are nearly equivalent. Moreover, the length of the shortest checklist as a proportion of the number of an agent's indifference classes shrinks to 0 (at an exponential rate) as the number of indifference classes increases. Checklists therefore provide a rapid procedural basis for utility maximization.Bounded rationality, Procedural rationality, Utility maximization, Choice behavior

A Million Answers to Twenty Questions: Choosing by Checklist

Many decision models in marketing science and psychology assume that a consumer chooses by proceeding sequentially through a checklist of desirable properties. These models are contrasted to the utility maximization model of rationality in economics. We show on the contrary that the two approaches are nearly equivalent. Moreover, the length of the shortest checklist as a proportion of the number of an agent’s indifference classes shrinks to 0 (at an exponential rate) as the number of indifference classes increases. Checklists therefore provide a rapid procedural basis for utility maximization.utility maximization, procedural rationality, bounded rationality, choice behavior

Compromises Between Cardinality and Ordinality, with an Application to the Convexity of Preferences

By taking sets of utility functions as a primitive description of agents, we define an ordering over the measurability classes of assumptions on utility functions. Cardinal and ordinal assumptions constitute two types of measurability classes, but several standard assumptions lie strictly between these extremes. We apply the ordering to arguments for the convexity of preferences and show that diminishing marginal utility, which implies convexity, is an example of a compromise between cardinality and ordinality. Moreover, Arrow's (1951) explanation of convexity, proposed as an ordinal theory, in fact relies on utility functions that lie in the cardinal measurement class. In addition, we show that transitivity and order-density (but not completeness) fully characterize the ordinal preferences that can be induced from sets of utility functions. Finally, we derive a more general cardinality theorem for additively separable preferences.