Economic Models - Convex Optimization
Economic Models - Convex Optimization Economic Models - Convex Optimization
Cheap-talk Multiple Equilibria and Pareto 105 period. Rather than expenditures in emission-reducing capital, γ can therefore be interpreted as the additional costs resulting of a temporary switch to a cleaner resource — for e.g., of a switch from coal to natural gas. The firms attempts to maximize their profit. As we shall see at a later place, one can assume without loss of generality that they disregard the future and maximize in every τ, their current instantaneous profit. However, the actual tax rate t enters their instantaneous profit function and is unknown at the time when they choose v. Thus, they need to base their optimal choice of v on an expectation (or, prediction) t e of t. In reality, a firm can invest larger or smaller amounts of money in order to make or less accurate predictions of the tax, the government will actually implement. In this model, we assume for simplicity that each firm has two (extreme) options for predicting the implemented tax. It can either suppose that R’s announcement is truthful, that is, that t will be equal to t a , or it can do costly research and try to better predict the t that will actually be implemented. Depending upon the expectation-formation mechanism the firm chooses, we speak of believer B or of a non-believer NB: A believer considers the regulator’s announcement to be truthful and sets t e = t a (3) This does not cost anything. A non-believer makes a “rational” prediction of t, considering the current number of Bs and NBs as constant. Making the prediction in any given period τ costs δ>0. Details on the derivation of the NBs’prediction will be given later. Note that a firm can change its choice of expectation-formation mechanism at any moment in time. That is, a B can become a NB, and vice versa. We denote with π = π(t) ∈ [0, 1] the current fraction of Bs in the population. Thus, 1 − π is the current fraction of NBs. 2.2. The Regulator, R The regulator’s goal is to maximize with respect to t a ≥ 0 and t ≥ 0, the inter-temporal social welfare function. (t a ,t)= ∫ ∞ 0 e −ρτ ϕ(t a ,t)dτ
106 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pavel Ševčík with ϕ(t a ,t)= (πx B + (1 − π)x NB ) + πg B + (1 − π)g NB − (π(x B − v B ) + (1 − π)(x NB − v NB )) 2 + t(π(x B − v B ) + (1 − π)(x NB − v NB )), (4) where x B ,x NB ,v B ,v NB denote the production respectively, investment chosen by the believers B and the non-believers NB, and where g B (.) and g NB (.) are their instantaneous profits, g B = px B − c x (x B ) 2 − t(x B − v B ) − 1 2 (vB ) 2 g NB = px NB − c x (x NB ) 2 − t(x NB − v NB ) − 1 2 (vNB ) 2 − δ. The strictly positive parameter ρ is a social discount factor. Thus, the instantaneous welfare φ is the sum of: (1) the economy’s output, that is also, the level of employment (remember that output and employment are one-to-one in this economy); (2) the total profits of Bs and NBs; (3) the squared volume of emissions and (4) the tax revenue. This function can be recognized as a reasonable approximation of the economy’s social surplus. The difference between the results of Dawid et al. (2005) and those of the present article stem directly from the different specification of the regulator’s objective function. In the former article, this function does not include the firm’s profit and is linear in the emissions. 2.3. Dynamics The firms switch between the two possible expectation-formation mechanisms (B or NB), according to a imitation-type dynamics, see Dawid (1999); Hofbauer and Sigmund (1998). Specifically, at each τ the firms meet randomly two-by-two, each pairing being equiprobable. At every encounter, the firm with the lower current profit adopts the belief of the other firm with a probability proportional to the current difference between the individual profits. Thus, on the average, the firms tend to adopt the type of prediction, N or NB, which may currently leads to the highest profits. Above mechanism gives rise to the dynamics. dπ =˙π = βπ(1 − π)g B − g NB . (6) dt Notice that ˙π reaches its maximum for π = 2 1 (the value or π for which the probability, for encounter between firms with different profits are (5)
- Page 77 and 78: 54 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 79 and 80: 56 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 81 and 82: 58 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 83 and 84: 60 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 85 and 86: 62 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 87 and 88: 64 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 89 and 90: 66 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 91 and 92: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 93 and 94: 70 Andrew Hughes Hallet have, there
- Page 95 and 96: 72 Andrew Hughes Hallet other. The
- Page 97 and 98: 74 Andrew Hughes Hallet success in
- Page 99 and 100: 76 Andrew Hughes Hallet with a hori
- Page 101 and 102: 78 Andrew Hughes Hallet control inf
- Page 103 and 104: 80 Andrew Hughes Hallet Table 2. Fi
- Page 105 and 106: 82 Andrew Hughes Hallet country 13
- Page 107 and 108: 84 Andrew Hughes Hallet Given this
- Page 109 and 110: 86 Andrew Hughes Hallet 5.4. Instit
- Page 111 and 112: 88 Andrew Hughes Hallet Substitutin
- Page 113 and 114: 90 Andrew Hughes Hallet This is alw
- Page 115 and 116: 92 Andrew Hughes Hallet (d) Since E
- Page 117 and 118: 94 Andrew Hughes Hallet Table 3. Ex
- Page 119 and 120: 96 Andrew Hughes Hallet restraint m
- Page 121 and 122: 98 Andrew Hughes Hallet HM Treasury
- Page 123 and 124: 100 Andrew Hughes Hallet γ/(β −
- Page 125 and 126: 102 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 127: 104 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 131 and 132: 108 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 133 and 134: 110 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 135 and 136: 112 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 137 and 138: 114 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 139 and 140: 116 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 141 and 142: 118 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 143 and 144: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 145 and 146: 122 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis 2. Mo
- Page 147 and 148: 124 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis GRAI
- Page 149 and 150: 126 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis (3) U
- Page 151 and 152: 128 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis The m
- Page 153 and 154: 130 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis lower
- Page 155 and 156: 132 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis Some
- Page 157 and 158: 134 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis We be
- Page 159 and 160: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 161 and 162: 138 Victoria Miroshnik 2. Corporate
- Page 163 and 164: 140 Victoria Miroshnik Japanese NC
- Page 165 and 166: 142 Victoria Miroshnik process shou
- Page 167 and 168: 144 Victoria Miroshnik National cul
- Page 169 and 170: 146 Victoria Miroshnik A1 A2 A3 D1
- Page 171 and 172: 148 Victoria Miroshnik Fujino, T (1
- Page 173 and 174: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 175 and 176: 152 Anna-Maria Mouza of salaries of
- Page 177 and 178: 154 Anna-Maria Mouza Table 2. final
106 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pavel Ševčík<br />
with<br />
ϕ(t a ,t)= (πx B + (1 − π)x NB ) + πg B + (1 − π)g NB<br />
− (π(x B − v B ) + (1 − π)(x NB − v NB )) 2<br />
+ t(π(x B − v B ) + (1 − π)(x NB − v NB )), (4)<br />
where x B ,x NB ,v B ,v NB denote the production respectively, investment<br />
chosen by the believers B and the non-believers NB, and where g B (.)<br />
and g NB (.) are their instantaneous profits,<br />
g B = px B − c x (x B ) 2 − t(x B − v B ) − 1 2 (vB ) 2<br />
g NB = px NB − c x (x NB ) 2 − t(x NB − v NB ) − 1 2 (vNB ) 2 − δ.<br />
The strictly positive parameter ρ is a social discount factor.<br />
Thus, the instantaneous welfare φ is the sum of: (1) the economy’s<br />
output, that is also, the level of employment (remember that output and<br />
employment are one-to-one in this economy); (2) the total profits of Bs<br />
and NBs; (3) the squared volume of emissions and (4) the tax revenue. This<br />
function can be recognized as a reasonable approximation of the economy’s<br />
social surplus. The difference between the results of Dawid et al. (2005) and<br />
those of the present article stem directly from the different specification of<br />
the regulator’s objective function. In the former article, this function does<br />
not include the firm’s profit and is linear in the emissions.<br />
2.3. Dynamics<br />
The firms switch between the two possible expectation-formation mechanisms<br />
(B or NB), according to a imitation-type dynamics, see Dawid (1999);<br />
Hofbauer and Sigmund (1998). Specifically, at each τ the firms meet randomly<br />
two-by-two, each pairing being equiprobable. At every encounter,<br />
the firm with the lower current profit adopts the belief of the other firm with<br />
a probability proportional to the current difference between the individual<br />
profits. Thus, on the average, the firms tend to adopt the type of prediction,<br />
N or NB, which may currently leads to the highest profits. Above<br />
mechanism gives rise to the dynamics.<br />
dπ<br />
=˙π = βπ(1 − π)g B − g NB . (6)<br />
dt<br />
Notice that ˙π reaches its maximum for π =<br />
2 1 (the value or π for<br />
which the probability, for encounter between firms with different profits are<br />
(5)