Microeconomics (2nd Edition) (Pearson Series in Economics)
2nd Edition
ISBN: 9780134492049
Author: Daron Acemoglu, David Laibson, John List
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
Four neighbors, each with a vegetable garden, agree to share their produce. One will grow beans (B), one will grow lettuce (L), one will grow tomatoes (T), and one will grow zucchini (Z). Table shows what fraction of each crop each neighbor will receive. What prices should the neighbors charge for their crops if each person is to break even and the lowest-priced crop has a value of $50?
TRUE OR FALSE: In urban economics, the Nash equilibrium outcome is typically greater than the Pareto efficient outcome. What principle in urban economics can explain this?
Two neighboring homeowners, i = 1, 2, simultaneously
choose how many hours l, to spend maintaining a beautiful
lawn. The average benefit per hour is
10 – 1, +
2'
and the (opportunity) cost per hour for each is 4. Home-
owner i's average benefit is increasing in the hours neighbor
j spends on his own lawn because the appearance of one's
property depends in part on the beauty of the surrounding
neighborhood.
a. Compute the Nash equilibrium.
b. Graph the best-response functions and indicate the Nash
equilibrium on the graph.
c. On the graph, show how the equilibrium would change
if the intercept of one of the neighbor's average benefit
functions fell from 10 to some smaller number.
Chapter 17 Solutions
Microeconomics (2nd Edition) (Pearson Series in Economics)
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Suppose an insurance company wants to charge a very healthy individual a premium of $1,200 a year for health coverage. It also wants to charge a less healthy individual a premium of $3,600 a year for health coverage. It is seeking to ascertain from any given customer information regarding his/her health by asking for several pieces of health-related information, such as doctor assessments of the person’s health, history of health-related problems, etc. The opportunity cost of a very healthy person securing a health report is $250 and the opportunity cost of a less healthy person securing a health report is $650. Of the choices below, how many reports should the company request to best ensure its paying the right premium to the right person? Reconsider the previous health insurance question. Of the choices below, which one is closest to the spread between the minimum possible number of reports and the maximum possible reports to achieve the company’s desired outcome? Reconsider again…arrow_forwardDescribe the Nash equilibrium/a and the mutually-preferred outcome. Finally, consider how people are sometimes able to resolve this social dilemma in the real world. Clearly explain how this method is successful in moving the players to a socially optimal outcome.arrow_forwardSuppose an insurance company wants to charge a very healthy individual a premium of $1,200 a year for health coverage. It also wants to charge a less healthy individual a premium of $3,600 a year for health coverage. It is seeking to ascertain from any given customer information regarding his/her health by asking for several pieces of health-related information, such as doctor assessments of the person's health, history of health-related problems, etc. The opportunity cost of a very healthy person securing a health report is $250 and the opportunity cost of a less healthy person securing a health report is $650. Of the choices below, how many reports should the company request to best ensure its paying the right premium to the right person?arrow_forward
- 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.arrow_forwardThe town of Grayling has 10 thousand residents who produce fish from fish farms and lakes. Each person who works on a fish farm produces 2 fish per day. Each person who fishes in a lake produces 10-X fish per day where X is the number of people (in thousands) who fish in the lakes. If every individual who fishes a lake is charged a tax of T fish, what value of T causes the Nash Equilibrium behavior to produce the largest possible number of fish for the town as a whole? (You can assume that the 'taxes' collected are shared among all of the residents)arrow_forwardFour individuals who live around a camp are hosting separate chirstmas parties, and all are considering purchasing aerial fireworks; any fireworks purchased will be set off over the camp, and thus will be visible to everyone at all of the parties. Karl’s marginal benefit from having an additional package of fireworks (which includes the benefit to himself and all of his guests) is given by MBK = 300 – 5Q, Jessica is given by MBJ = 600 – 10Q, Lara’s is given by MBL = 900 – 15Q, and Emily’s is given by MBE = 1,200 – 20Q, where Q is the total number of packages of fireworks set off at all parties. Each package of fireworks costs $800 (i.e., MC = 800). How many packages of fireworks will actually be set off if it is left to the free market? How much deadweight loss will result if this activity is left to the free market (as in part b)?arrow_forward
- Define horizontal communication with example ?arrow_forwardIn 2018, a wind farm developer was ordered by the Iowa state appeals court to dismantle its newly constructed wind turbines after nearby residents filed a lawsuit complaining about the loud noise and visual impact of the turbines. Discuss how the wind farm developer could have used insights from the Coase Theorem to avoid its troubles.arrow_forwardEvolutionary game theory provides a framework for understanding the emergence of preferences and behavior. Why are theoretical methodologies that employ the rational actor model an evolutionary stable strategy for economists?arrow_forward
- In a standard economic model, we generally assume the individual only cares about their own payoff. So, for example, utility of individual i is given by u = pi, where pi is the individual’s payoff. Suppose the individual is playing a dictator game with another partner j. How would you modify the utility function to explain the non-zero allocations to the partner that are typically observed?arrow_forwardWhich of the following statements is true? An outcome cannot be a Nash equilibrium if it is Pareto dominated by every other outcome. If all outcomes of a game are rationalizable, then there is at least one Nash equilibrium in pure strategies. Games with a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium cannot have a pure strategy Nash equilibrium. Adding more players to a game will increase the number of Nash equilibria. None of the above. No Answerarrow_forward1 0:54:39 J ok The dictator game Multiple Choice reveals nothing important about economic behavior because the money used is hypothetical. demonstrates that people care about fairness and will sacrifice financially for others. demonstrates nothing definitive about fairness, as concerns about the other player's perceptions will influence the dictator's choices. regularly results in the dictator taking all of the money for him/herself, as economic theory would predict.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Economics (MindTap Course List)EconomicsISBN:9781337617383Author:Roger A. ArnoldPublisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: Applications, Strategies an...EconomicsISBN:9781305506381Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. HarrisPublisher:Cengage Learning
Economics (MindTap Course List)
Economics
ISBN:9781337617383
Author:Roger A. Arnold
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: Applications, Strategies an...
Economics
ISBN:9781305506381
Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. Harris
Publisher:Cengage Learning