Microeconomics Plus Mylab Economics With Pearson Etext -- Access Card Package (2nd Edition) (the Pearson Series In Finance)
2nd Edition
ISBN: 9780134641454
Author: Acemoglu
Publisher: PEARSON
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 17, Problem 13Q
To determine
In certain scenarios of the Coase theorem, bargaining power cannot change outcome but has influence over the allocation of benefits.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Demonstrate the concept of coordination failure by using the payoff matrix and prove that, Coordination failure among economic agents can lead to an inefficient outcome while the opposite can guide to an efficient outcome. Use any hypothetical scenario to justify your analysis.
Two neighboring homeowners, i = 1,2, simultaneously choose how many hours to spend maintaining a lawn. The AVERAGE benefit per hour for i is
(e.g., it is for homeowner 1)
And the (opportunity) cost per hour for each homeowner is 4.
(a) Give each homeowner’s (net) payoff as a function of and .
(b) Compute the Nash equilibrium.
How does the concept of the Prisoner's Dilemma illustrate the challenges of cooperation and rational decision-making in economic scenarios?
Chapter 17 Solutions
Microeconomics Plus Mylab Economics With Pearson Etext -- Access Card Package (2nd Edition) (the Pearson Series In Finance)
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Describe an original social dilemma you observe in the real world -- i.e. a situation in which no one has an incentive to change what they're doing, but everyone would be better off if everyone changed what they were doing. Try to create two tables to present your dilemma as a 2×2 game. Your first table should be descriptive, Your second table should be a payoff matrix showing the payoffs for both players in each of the four situations Using your payoff matrix, describe the Nash equilibrium and the mutually preferred outcome.arrow_forwardWhy is a cooperative outcome more likely in an often repeated prisoners’ dilemma?arrow_forwardIn this version of the ultimatum game experiment, one participant is given £100, and is told to offer to split that amount with another participant. The second player can either refuse to accept the division, in which case the participant receiving the £100 has to give it back, or can accept the division, in which case, the player receiving the money splits the £100 as proposed. For the participant who has to accept or reject the offer A) The best strategy is to accept any offer which meets the social norm for fairness. B) The best strategy is to threaten to turn down any transfer of less than £100 to ensure that the person receiving the money makes a fair offer. C) There is a dominant strategy to accept any offer because gaining some money is better than gaining no money D) There is a dominant strategy to turn down any offer other than £50 because an unequal split would be unfair.arrow_forward
- Suppose two bidders compete for a single indivisible item (e.g., a used car, a piece of art, etc.). We assume that bidder 1 values the item at $v1, and bidder 2 values the item at $v2. We assume that v1 > v2. In this problem we study a second price auction, which proceeds as follows. Each player i = 1, 2 simultaneously chooses a bid bi ≥ 0. The higher of the two bidders wins, and pays the second highest bid (in this case, the other player’s bid). In case of a tie, suppose the item goes to bidder 1. If a bidder does not win, their payoff is zero; if the bidder wins, their payoff is their value minus the second highest bid. a) Now suppose that player 1 bids b1 = v2 and player 2 bids b2 = v1, i.e., they both bid the value of the other player. (Note that in this case, player 2 is bidding above their value!) Show that this is a pure NE of the second price auction. (Note that in this pure NE the player with the lower value wins, while in the weak dominant strategy equilibrium where both…arrow_forwardRachel, Monica, and Phoebe are roommates; each has 10 hours of free time you could spend cleaning your apartment. You all dislike cleaning, but you all like having a clean apartment: each person’s payoff is the total hours spent (by everyone) cleaning, minus a number 1/2 times the hours spent (individually) cleaning.That is, ui(s1, s2, s3) = s1 + s2 + s3 -1/2si Assume everyone chooses simultaneously how much time to spend cleaning. a. Find the Nash equilibrium. b. Find the Nash if the payoff for each player is: ui(s1, s2, s3) = s1 + s2 + s3 − 3si Is the Nash equilibrium Pareto efficient? If not, can you find an outcome in which everyone is better off than in the Nash equilibrium outcome?arrow_forwardIn Problem 25, under what conditions is a pooling equilibrium possible? Problem 25 Education is a continuous variable, where is the years of schooling of a high-ability worker and is the years of schooling of a lower-ability worker. The cost per period of education for these types of workers is respectively, where The wages they receive if employers can tell them apart are And Under what conditions is a separating equilibrium possible? How much education will each type of worker get?arrow_forward
- Common pool resource game) Consider a common pool resource game with two appropriators. (If you don’t know what is a common pool resource, read the Wikipedia article about the ”Tragedy of the Commons”.) Each appropriator has an endowment e > 0 that can be invested in an outside activity with marginal payoff c > 0 or into the common pool resource. Let x ∈ X ⊆ [0, e] denote the player’s investment into the common pool resource (likewise, y denotes the opponent’s investment). The return from investment into the common pool resource is x x+y · ((x + y) − (x + y) 2 ). So the symmetric payoff function is given by π(x, y) = c · (e − x) + x x+y · ((x + y) − (x + y) 2 ) if x > 0 and c · e otherwise. Assume 1 − e < c < 1. Find Nash equilibrium of the game. Proceed by deriving the best response correspondences first. How does Nash equilibrium depend on parameters c and e (varying one at a time and keeping the others fixed)?arrow_forwardTwo athletes of equal ability are competing for a prize of $10,000. Each is deciding whether to take a dangerous performance enhancing drug. If one athlete takes the drug, and the other does not, the one who takes the drug wins the prize. If both or neither take the drug, they tie and split the prize. Taking the drug imposes health risks that are equivalent to a loss of X dollars. a) Draw a 2×2 payoff matrix describing the decisions the athletes face. b) For what X is taking the drug the Nash equilibrium? c) Does making the drug safer (that is, lowering X) make the athletes better or worse off? Explain.arrow_forwardTHE PRISONERS' DILEMMA: APPLICATIONS Which of the following phenomena are common mechanisms for sustaining cooperation in prisoners' dilemmas? (Mark all with this property.) Select one or more: ethical codes socialisation of costs delegation of authority underprovision of public goods internalisation of externalities contracts and treaties arms races internalisation of authority overuse of common goods socialisation of public goodsarrow_forward
- Two parties, Juan and Ben, have been negotiating the purchase by Ben of Juan's car. Juan receives a new and higher bid for his car from Adriana. How might Adriana's bid change Juan and Ben's threat values? The threat values are unchanged. Juan now values the car at the price of Adriana's bid, her bid is his opportunity cost of selling the car to Ben, and that opportunity cost is Juan's new threat value. Juan's new threat value is the product of the difference between Ben and Adriana's offers and the probability the car will be sold to Adriana. Juan's threat value is unchanged, but Ben has to consider his new opportunity costarrow_forwardThere is a city, which looks like chopped isosceles triangle, as shown below. Citizens live uniformly distributed all over the city. Two ice-cream vendors, A and B, must independently set up stores in the city. Each citizen buys from the vendor closest to their location and when equidistant from both vendors they choose by coin toss. Each vendor’s aim is to maximize the expected number of customers. A choice of location by the two vendors is a Nash equilibrium if no vendor can do better by deviating unilaterally. Does this game have a Nash equilibrium? If so, describe it. If not, explain why notarrow_forwardConsider the following simplified bargaining game. Players 1 and 2 have preferences over two goods, x and y. Player 1 is endowed with one unit of good x and none of good y, while Player 2 is endowed with one unit of y and none of good x. Player i has utility function: min{xi, yi} where xi is i's consumption of x and yi his consumption of y. The "bargaining" works as follows. Each player simultaneously hands any (nonnegative) quantity of the good he possesses (up to his entire endowment) to the other player. (a) Write this as a game in normal form. (b) Find all pure strategy equilibria of this game. (c) Does this game have a dominant strategy equilibrium? If so, what is it? If not, why not? Please show all work. Note:- Do not provide handwritten solution. Maintain accuracy and quality in your answer. Take care of plagiarism. Answer completely. You will get up vote for sure.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
