Games of Capacity Manipulation in Hospital-intern Markets

In this paper, we analyze capacity manipulation games in hospital-intern markets inspired by the real-life entry-level labor markets for young physicians who seek residencies at hospitals. In a hospital-intern market, the matching is determined by a centralized clearinghouse using the preferences revealed by interns and hospitals and the number of vacant positions revealed by hospitals. We consider a model in which preferences of hospitals and interns are common knowledge. Hospitals play a capacity-reporting game. We analyze the equilibria of the game-form under the two most widely used matching rules: hospital-optimal and intern-optimal stable rules. We show that (i) there may not be a pure strategy equilibrium in general; and (ii) when a pure strategy equilibrium exists, every hospital weakly prefers this equilibrium outcome to the outcome of any larger capacity profile. Finally, we present conditions on preferences to guarantee the existence of pure strategy equilibria.     

PRODUCT DIVERSITY,DEMAND STRUCTURES,AND OPTIMAL TAXATION

This article studies optimal taxation in a general equilibrium macroeconomic model with endogenous entry. We compare the constant elasticity of substitution (CES) model to three alternative demand structures: oligopolistic competition in prices, oligopolistic competition in quantities, and translog preferences. Our economy is characterized by two distortions: a labor distortion due to the misalignment of markups on goods and leisure, and an entry distortion due to the misalignment of the consumer surplus effect and the profit destruction effect of entry. The two distortions interact in determining the wedge between the market‐driven and optimal level of product diversity. We show how optimal labor and entry taxes depend on the prevailing demand structure, the nature and size of entry costs, and the degree of substitutability between goods. (JEL E22, E61, E62)     

Demand cross elasticity without substitutability: An experiment

We study a market in which goods are produced under low marginal costs with a poor degree of substitutability among products. In this environment we ran an experiment to explain why prices are interdependent even when preferences are independent. We compare our results to previous theoretical and laboratory experimental literature on price fairness. We find that even in the absence of interaction among subjects, price fairness/unfairness does play a major role in the decision to accept or reject a deal. Subjects tend to be more resistant to a price increase and reject a deal when the preferred product is not referenced to price increases of not substitute products, if these products are considered to be a benchmark for fair conduct. Thus demand cross elasticity can arise between products that are not substitutes. This result has important implications for antitrust policy. In delineating a market perimeter, fairness concerns suggest that products that are similar but not interchangeable should be included in the relevant antitrust market.     

HIERARCHICAL TRADE

Commodity trading is typically organized hierarchically: Large‐scale trade takes place at the global price system while individuals trade at local price systems within their countries. Agencies or trading houses establish the link between these different market places. In this paper, we devise a framework to study this type of hierarchical trade. We identify the free trade and the autarky equilibrium as polar cases. We show that no other two‐stage market equilibria exist if the commodity space is two‐dimensional. An example demonstrates that other, so‐called intermediate equilibria exist for three‐dimensional commodity spaces. We then provide an explicit construction of special classes of intermediate equilibria. Moreover, we study the consequences when some countries control the agency that organizes trade at the global level and we analyze the role of international goods arbitrage. Finally, we show that profit‐maximizing agencies may not promote free trade outcomes. (JEL D43, D50, F10)     

Good habits and bad habits: A new age socio-economic model of preference formation

In contrast to neoclassical economics which generally takes consumer preferences as given, the model developed here explains how a person's preferences for consumer goods change over time and may change for the better or worse. This is a four self model. The four selves correspond to four types of preferences: actual preferences, metapreferences, true preferences, and unrestrained preferences. An individual's initial actual preferences reflecting one's investment in consumption capital are likely to change to the extent that they differ either from ones metapreferences or one's unrestrained preferences. Temptations from the latter could lead to a deterioration of actual preferences. Or the intrapsychic stress that occurs when metapreferences are significantly out of synch with actual preferences could lead to improved actual preferences. A person's actual preferences improve when they change toward true preferences, the unique set of preferences that represent what is really and truly the best for that person.     

Games of capacity allocation in many-to-one matching with an aftermarket

In this paper, we study many-to-one matching (hospital–intern markets) with an aftermarket. We first show that every stable matching system is manipulable via aftermarket. We then analyze the Nash equilibria of capacity allocation games, in which preferences of hospitals and interns are common knowledge and every hospital determines a quota for the regular market given its total capacity for the two matching periods. Under the intern-optimal stable matching system, we show that a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium may not exist. Common preferences for hospitals ensure the existence of equilibrium in weakly dominant strategies whereas unlike in games of capacity manipulation strong monotonicity of population is not a sufficient restriction on preferences to avoid the non-existence problem. Besides, in games of capacity allocation, it is not true either that every hospital weakly prefers a mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium to any larger regular market quota profiles.     

GOOD GRAPES AND BAD LOBSTERS: APPLYING THE ALCHIAN AND ALLEN THEOREM

We consider the well-known theorem of Alchian and Allen that adding a per unit charge to the price of two substitute goods increases the relative consumption of the higher price good. The current literature misspecifies the conditions under which the theorem holds. When applying the theorem the fixed cost should be applied on a per unit basis, rather than in terms of an entry fee for consumption. We state the necessary conditions for the theorem to hold when the consumers are shipped to the goods.     

Migration disequilibrium and specific division rules

We examine the extent to which migration equilibria fail to exist in a global economy in which a specific division rule determines the allocation of a perfectly divisible, nondisposable resource among individuals with single-peaked preferences who reside in local economies. In particular, almost without exception, under the egalitarian, proportional, queuing, and uniform division rules, migration equilibria fail to exist for some sets of preferences. Received: 23 May 1995 / Accepted: 1 October 1996     

STRATEGIC EXCLUSION OF THE HIGHEST‐VALUED BIDDERS IN WHOLESALE AUTOMOBILE AUCTIONS

By restricting bidders to be qualified dealers, wholesale automobile auctions exclude the bidders who place the highest value on the vehicles: consumers. This article provides an explanation for this puzzling entry restriction by modeling the inventory‐management decisions of a firm. If an automobile dealer has more vehicles in inventory than is optimal, it cannot reduce its inventory by selling directly to consumers without impacting the demand for the automobiles that remain. However, if the dealer sells his/her excess inventory to a competitor, the demand for his/her remaining vehicles increases as the competitor responds by acquiring fewer additional vehicles. We demonstrate that for any market demand function and any cost of the competitor acquiring additional vehicles, a dealer with excess inventory does better by selling a subset of its vehicles to a competitor rather than directly to consumers. We discuss the market for wholesale automobiles in relation to other markets where goods are also auctioned but where entry is not restricted to qualified dealers. Doing so allows us to compare our inventory‐management explanation to common explanations provided by industry practitioners. We find that intuitive alternative stories do not consistently explain practices across markets. (JEL D44, L11, L62)     

Bidder Preferences among Auction Institutions

This study examines bidder preferences between alternative auction institutions. We seek to characterize experimentally the degree to which bidders prefer an ascending auction to a sealed bid auction. We find very strong ceteris paribus preferences for the ascending institution with bidders choosing it overwhelmingly often when entry prices for the two auctions are the same. When the entry prices of the two auctions differ, many subjects can be shown to be willing to pay more to enter the ascending auction than is explainable by their risk attitudes when accounting for their expectations about the risk preferences of their opponents. (JEL C91 , D44 )     

FIELD EXPERIMENTS ON THE ANCHORING OF ECONOMIC VALUATIONS

A pillar of behavioral research is that preferences are constructed during the process of choice. A prominent finding is that uninformative numerical “anchors” influence judgment and valuation. It remains unclear whether such processes influence market equilibria. We conduct two experiments that extend the study of anchoring to field settings. The first experiment produces evidence that some consumers' valuations can be anchored in novel situations; there is no evidence that experienced agents are influenced by anchors. The second experiment finds that anchors have only transient effects on market outcomes that converge to equilibrium predictions after a few market periods. (JEL C93, D11)     

Arrovian theorems for economic domains. The case where there are simultaneously private and public goods

We prove that Arrow's theorem and, with quasi-transitive social preferences, a version of Mas-Colell and Sonnenschein's theorem, hold when there are simultaneously private and public goods, and the individuals are supposed to have selfish, continuous, convex and strictly increasing preferences. We first prove the results in an abstract general setting, and show that the above-mentioned economic domain is a model for this setting.We thank Donald Campbell and two anonymous referees for helpfull suggestions.     

A voluntary participation game through a unit-by-unit cost share mechanism of a non-excludable public good

The strategic analysis of voluntary participation in the public good provision has shown two distinct results. First, when the provision of public goods is binary, there are Nash equilibria supporting efficient allocations, and these are Strong Nash equilibria of the game. On the other hand, a model of a continuous public good (Saijo–Yamato, J Econ Theory 84:227–242, 1999) showed that the participation of all agents is not an equilibrium in many situations. This article considers the provision of a discrete and multi-unit public good, and examines a unit-by-unit participation game. Namely, people are asked to participate in each unit of public good provision, and those who chose to participate share the marginal cost of public good. In this game of public good provision, there are subgame-perfect equilibria that are Pareto efficient. We also use the refinement concepts to eliminate inefficient subgame-perfect equilibria and also to characterize the efficient subgame-perfect equilibria.     

Linear cost sharing in economies with non-Samuelsonian public goods: Core equivalence

 We consider an economy with non-Samuelsonian public goods and we focus on linear cost sharing. In a linear cost sharing equilibrium all agents in the economy optimize given a certain fixed cost share to be contributed towards the provision of public goods in the economy. Hence, each agent pays a certain fraction of the total establishment costs of public goods and these cost shares are common knowledge. We show that for a certain fixed contribution scheme the resulting linear cost share equilibria are equivalent to corresponding core allocations, in which the core is based on the integral of the individual cost shares. We also show that there is no equivalence of the Foley core with cost share equilibria, even in well-behaved large economies. Received: 16 August 1995/Accepted: 29 July 1996     

A Stochastic Monopsony Theory of the Business Cycle

Two distinct regimes, contractions and expansions, are generated in a model in which goods markets clear and all individuals are optimizing, strict wage and price takers, have fully rational expectations, and are heterogeneous in both preferences and resource endowments. Involuntary unemployment, asymmetric monetary policy effectiveness, and a changing relationship between real wages and employment over the business cycle are the result of optimizing behavior by monopsonistic, wage-setting, and price-taking firms faced with price uncertainty, an upward-sloped supply of employees, and efficiency wage behavior. Disequilibrium and involuntary unemployment can occur at the level of the individual firm's labor market.     

What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods

Multifunctional agriculture attempts to establish a new balance between traditional commodity support and payment for the production of non-market goods and services that are increasingly demanded by the public. Supplying non-market goods presents particular problems for optimal policy design, not least the elicitation of consumer demand for those goods. The resulting configuration of support policy has potentially enormous implications for rural areas and yet surprisingly little is known about how the public would prefer public support to be allocated. This seems to have more to do with the political expediency than true public preferences. We review the evidence of consumer demand for non-market goods and consider the methodologies used for eliciting public preferences regarding the policy tradeoffs that are likely to characterise the agri-industry reform debate.     

Probabilistic assignment of indivisible goods with single-peaked preferences

We consider the problem of assigning indivisible goods among a group of agents with lotteries when the preference profile is single-peaked. Unfortunately, even on this restricted domain of preferences, equal treatment of equals, stochastic dominance efficiency, and stochastic dominance strategy-proofness are incompatible.     

Being the best or doing the right thing? An investigation of positional,prosocial and conformist preferences in provision of public goods

Based on a simple theoretical framework, we show that when individuals exhibit positional, prosocial or conformist preferences which are endogenous, the end outcomes in terms of private provision of public goods can differ significantly from traditional neo-classical predictions. Indeed, when a given individual selects a specific subset of preferences according to what others do, he/she will contribute positively to the public good provision. We provide anecdotal evidence to support our theoretical analysis by using data from an Internet survey on a sample of French individuals. Analyses of individual responses confirm our theoretical arguments. For instance, we show that relative concerns matter, that is, for several environmental goods, people might prefer polluting more in absolute terms but less than others in society. Moreover, we also test whether people exhibit a social desirability bias and show that they attribute more (less) positional (prosocial) concerns to others in society.     

On the necessary and sufficient conditions for Nash implementation

The purpose of this paper is to provide a constructive way of checking whether or not a social choice correspondence can be implemented in Nash equilibria. The results apply when there are two or more players. The usefulness of this constructive approach is illustrated for the case of single-peaked preferences over , a two-person public good economy with monotonic preferences, and a two-person exchange economy with monotonic preferences.I am grateful to Rajeev Bhattacharya, William Thomson, Takehiko Yamato, and an anonymous referee, for helpful comments. This research was supported by grants from the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.     

Entry deterrence in electoral spatial competition

 In this paper we examine a model of electoral competition with entry costs, where several established parties compete against each other under the threat of potential entry. Assuming single-peakedness of the distribution of voters’ ideal points, we show that, if there are two established parties, an equilibrium always exists and is unique, and demonstrate that the Hotelling-Downs and the Smithies-Palfrey equilibria represent special cases of the equilibrium in our model. If there are more than two established parties, an equilibrium is always unique and there exists an upper bound on the values of entry cost which guarantee the existence of an equilibrium. Received: 3 July 1995/Accepted: 10 June 1996