1 / 17

Exercise 11.3

This exercise explores the adverse selection problem and the introduction of incentive compatibility constraints to find the second-best solution. It discusses full-information contracts, the optimisation problem, and the optimal payments for each type.

lcummings
Download Presentation

Exercise 11.3

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. Exercise 11.3 MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell March 2007

  2. Ex 11.3(1): Question • purpose: solution to an adverse selection problem • method: find full-information solution from reservation utility levels. Then introduce incentive-compatibility constraint in order to find second-best solution

  3. Ex 11.3(1): participation constraint • The principal knows the agent’s type • So maximises x  y subject to • where u = 0 • for each individual type • In the full-information solution • the participation constraint binds • there is no distortion

  4. Ex 11.3(1): full-information case • Differentiate the binding participation constraint • to find the slope of the IC: • Since there is no distortion this slope must equal 1 • This implies • Using the fact that u = uand substituting into the participation constraint:

  5. ub _ ua _ slope = 1 slope = 1 Ex 11.3(1): Full-information contracts • Space of (legal services, payment) • a-type’s reservation utility y • b-type’s reservation utility • Contracts • y*a = 1 • y*b = ¼ x 0 x*b = ½ x*a = 2

  6. Ex 11.3(1): FI contracts, assessment • Solution has MRS = MRT • since there is no distortion… • …the allocation (x*a, y*a), (x*b, y*b) is efficient • We cannot perturb the allocation so as to • make one person better off… • …without making the other worse off

  7. Ex 11.3 (2): Question method: • Derive the incentive-compatibility constraint • Set up Lagrangean • Solve using standard methods • Compare with full-information values of x and y

  8. Ex 11.3 (2): “wrong” contract? • Now it is impossible to monitor the lawyer’s type • Is it still viable to offer the efficient contracts (x*a, y*a) and (x*b, y*b)? • Consider situation of a type-a lawyer • if he accepts the contract meant for him he gets utility • but if he were to get a type-b contract he would get utility • So a type a would prefer to take… • a type-b contract • rather than the efficient contract

  9. Ex 11.3 (2): incentive compatibility • Given the uncertainty about lawyer’s type… • …the firm wants to maximise expected profits • it is risk-neutral • This must take account of the “wrong-contract” problem just mentioned • An a-type must be rewarded sufficiently… • so that is not tempted to take a b-type contract • The incentive-compatibility constraint for the a types

  10. Ex 11.3 (2): optimisation problem • Let p be the probability that the lawyer is of type a • Expected profits are • Structure of problem is as for previous exercises • participation constraint for type b will be binding • incentive-compatibility constraint for type a will be binding • This enables us to write down the Lagrangean…

  11. Ex 11.3 (2): Lagrangean • The Lagrangean for the firm’s optimisation problem is: • where… • l is the Lagrange multiplier for b’sparticipation constraint • m is the Lagrange multiplier fora’sincentive-compatibility constraint • Find the optimum by examining the FOCs…

  12. Ex 11.3 (2): Lagrange multipliers • Differentiate Lagrangean with respect to xa • and set result to 0 • yields m = pta • Differentiate Lagrangean with respect to xb • and set result to 0 • using the value for m this yields l = tb • Use these values of the Lagrange multiplier in the remaining FOCs

  13. Ex 11.3 (2): optimal payment, a-types • Differentiate Lagrangean with respect to ya • and set result to 0 • Substitute for m: • Rearranging we find • exactly as for the full-information case • also MRS = 1, exactly as for the full-information case • illustrates the “no distortion at the top” principle

  14. Ex 11.3 (2): optimal payment, b-types • Differentiate Lagrangean with respect to yb • and set result to 0 • Substitute for l and m: • Rearranging we find • this is less than ¼[tb]2… • …the full-information income for a b-type

  15. Ex 11.3 (2): optimal x • Differentiate Lagrangean with respect to l • and set result to 0 • get the b-type’s binding participation constraint • this yields • which becomes • Differentiate Lagrangean with respect to m • and set result to 0 • get the a-type’s binding incentive-compatibility constraint • this yields • These are less than values for full-information contracts • for both a-types and b-types

  16. ub _ ua _ ^ ^ ^ ^ xb yb ya xa Ex 11.3 (2): second-best solution • a-type’s reservation utility • b-type’s reservation utility y • a-type’s full-info contract • b-type’s second-best contract • a-type’s second-best contract • • • x 0

  17. Ex 11.3: points to remember • Standard “adverse-selection” results • Full-information solution is fully exploitative • binding participation constraint for both types • Asymmetric information • incentive-compatibility problem for a-types • Second best solution • binding participation constraint for b-type • binding incentive-compatibility constraint for a- type • no distortion at the top

More Related