Equilibrium, Efficiency, and Welfare

Competitive equilibria are studied in both partial-equilibrium and general-equilibrium settings for economies characterized by consumers with incomplete preference structures. Market equilibrium determination is developed as solving a zero-maximum problem for a supremal convolution whose dual, by Fenchel's Duality Theorem, coincides with a zero-minimum for an infimal convolution that characterizes Pareto optima. The First and Second Welfare Theorems are natural consequences. The maximization of the sum of consumer surplus and producer surplus is studied in this analytic setting, and the implications of nonsmooth preference structures or technologies for equilibrium determination are discussed.

A Sparsity-Based Model of Bounded Rationality *

This article defines and analyzes a “sparse max” operator, which is a less than fully attentive and rational version of the traditional max operator. The agent builds (as economists do) a simplified model of the world which is sparse, considering only the variables of first-order importance. His stylized model and his resulting choices both derive from constrained optimization. Still, the sparse max remains tractable to compute. Moreover, the induced outcomes reflect basic psychological forces governing limited attention. The sparse max yields a behavioral version of basic chapters of the microeconomics textbook: consumer demand and competitive equilibrium. I obtain a behavioral version of Marshallian and Hicksian demand, Arrow-Debreu competitive equilibrium, the Slutsky matrix, the Edgeworth box, Roy’s identity, and so on. The Slutsky matrix is no longer symmetric: nonsalient prices are associated with anomalously small demand elasticities. Because the consumer exhibits nominal illusion, in the Edgeworth box, the offer curve is a two-dimensional surface rather than a one-dimensional curve. As a result, different aggregate price levels correspond to materially distinct competitive equilibria, in a similar spirit to a Phillips curve. The Arrow-Debreu welfare theorems typically do not hold. This framework provides a way to assess which parts of basic microeconomics are robust, and which are not, to the assumption of perfect maximization.

Sharing Risk Efficiently under Suboptimal Punishments for Defection

I study efficient risk-sharing in an endowments economy when enforcement is achieved by the threat of reversion to punishments that may be less severe than autarkic consumption. I characterize (up to a technical condition) the set of allocations that may be interpreted as efficient with respect to some punishment convention. The conditions rationalizing such efficiency are very weak; they are (i) resource exhaustion, (ii) satisfaction of individual rationality constraints at each continuation, and (iii) finiteness of the value of the allocation under the implicit decentralizing price system. I show how efficient allocations may be decentralized, and I state versions of the Welfare Theorems for these economies.