Test 2 ECN 441 Spring 2021 Arizona State University

Test 2ecn 441 Spring 2021arizona State University24 Hrs 100 Pts in

Analyze how the concepts of convexity of preferences, the convexity of production sets, and their roles in the First and Second Welfare Theorems are essential in understanding the efficiency and equilibrium in economic models. Examine a specific scenario involving agents with endowments and utility functions, and explore how prices and allocations determine competitive outcomes. Consider an economy with production involving oranges and apples, where preferences and technological constraints shape optimality and market equilibrium. Finally, analyze a labor-leisure choice model with technological and utility considerations, identifying Pareto optimal allocations and competitive equilibrium conditions.

Paper For Above instruction

Economic theory fundamentally relies on the properties of preferences and production sets to establish the conditions underpinning competitive equilibrium and efficiency. Central to this are the assumptions of convexity, which ensure the tractability and desirability of certain outcomes within the models. This paper explores the importance of convex preferences, convex production sets, and their implications for the First and Second Welfare Theorems, complemented by illustrative scenarios involving agents with specific endowments, utility functions, and technological production processes.

Convexity of Preferences and Welfare Theorems

The convexity of preferences—that is, the assumption that convex sets of preferred bundles exist—plays a crucial role in ensuring that competitive equilibria are Pareto efficient. Convex preferences imply that consumers prefer average bundles to extremes, which guarantees that any local optimum is also a global one. This condition is vital for the First Welfare Theorem (FWT), which states that under certain assumptions—including convex preferences and convex production sets—every competitive equilibrium outcome is Pareto efficient. Without convex preferences, the set of attainable Pareto optima may not be achievable through competitive price systems, because non-convexities could lead to multiple local optima and market failures.

However, convexity is not strictly necessary for the FWT to hold universally. In some cases, alternative assumptions or mechanisms, such as network externalities or specific market structures, can preserve efficiency despite non-convex preferences. Nonetheless, convex preferences simplify analysis and underpin the general validity of the FWT.

Convexity of Production Sets and the Second Welfare Theorem

The Second Welfare Theorem (SWT) states that any Pareto efficient outcome can be achieved through a competitive equilibrium, provided certain conditions—including convex production sets—are met. Convexity of the production set ensures that firms can adjust their production plans smoothly and that the set of feasible outputs is convex, allowing for the separation of efficiency from initial endowments via appropriate redistribution of wealth through competitive prices. If the production set is non-convex, the set of attainable efficiency outcomes may be fragmented or require subsidies or taxes, thereby complicating the realization of desired Pareto optima through market mechanisms.

Thus, convexity of the production set is a sufficient condition for the validity of the SWT, enabling any Pareto efficient allocation to be financed through competitive markets. Non-convexities, often arising from fixed costs or indivisible inputs, challenge this result and may necessitate interventions beyond the scope of pure competitive markets.

Application: Agent Endowments and Market Prices

In the provided example involving agents A and B with endowments and valuations, the equilibrium prices are determined where each agent maximizes their utility subject to budget constraints. Since utility is linear and agents value the car differently, competitive prices must balance the marginal valuations. Equilibrium occurs where the market clears, and the allocation depends on the relative prices: if the price exceeds Agent A’s valuation ($200), A prefers to keep the car; if it falls below Agent B’s valuation ($350), B prefers to acquire it. The equilibrium price will be somewhere between these valuations—say, around $275—ensuring the car is allocated efficiently to the agent who values it most. Consequently, the agent with the higher valuation gets the car at equilibrium.

Production and Pareto Optimality with Complementary Goods

Within the economy producing apples and oranges, the set of Pareto optimal allocations aligns with the contract curve: because apples and oranges are perfect complements, optimality occurs where the ratio of prices equals their marginal rate of transformation (MRT). Given the production functions, the firm’s profit maximization under the price ratio \(p_o/p_a = 2\) depends on choosing inputs that maximize the difference between revenue and costs, respecting technological constraints. The profit-maximizing plans involve transforming oranges into apples according to the provided ratios, which yields specific quantities and profits. If the price ratio aligns with the MRT of the technology, then the equilibrium is sustainable; if not, the firm would adjust production away from optimality, indicating that the ratio may not be an equilibrium price.

Labor-Leisure Model and Pareto Efficiency

The model of a worker choosing between leisure and labor exemplifies the trade-off between consumption and leisure, where the utility is derived from the amount of bread and leisure time. The set of Pareto optimal allocations arises where the marginal rate of substitution between leisure and consumption equals the marginal rate of transformation dictated by the production technology \(b(l) = l^{1/2}\). Equilibrium occurs where a price (wage) equalizes the marginal utility per unit of labor, and the worker chooses a level of labor supply that maximizes utility subject to the budget constraint. The conditions for Pareto optimality include the first-order conditions balancing marginal utility and marginal cost, resulting in an efficient allocation of leisure and labor, with corresponding market wages and bread output reflecting this equilibrium.

Conclusion

Convexity assumptions for preferences and production sets are fundamental in underpinning the core results of welfare economics, such as the First and Second Welfare Theorems. These conditions facilitate the achievement of efficient allocations through competitive markets, even though real-world non-convexities pose challenges. Analytical scenarios involving agent endowments, technological transformations, and individual choices illustrate how these principles operate in practice, highlighting the importance of price systems in coordinating resource allocation efficiently. Understanding these concepts provides essential insight into the design and functioning of economic systems, emphasizing the importance of mathematical assumptions in economic theory.

References

• Varian, H. R. (1992). Microeconomic Analysis (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
• Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., & Green, J. R. (1995). Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press.
• Arrow, K. J., & Debreu, G. (1954). Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy. Econometrica, 22(3), 265-290.
• Debreu, G. (1959). Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium. Yale University Press.
• Hahn, F. H. (1984). General Equilibrium. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Phelps, E. S. (2006). Welfare Economics and the Theory of Markets. Routledge.
• Kirman, A. (1992). Whom or What Does the Representative Individual Represent? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(2), 117–136.
• McKenzie, L. W. (1954). Some Remarks on the Theory of Non-Linear Programming. Economica, 21(81), 1-14.
• Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in Positive Economics. University of Chicago Press.
• Hicks, J. R. (1939). Value and Capital. Oxford University Press.