A crucial skill in economic analysis is the application of the Pareto criterion to evaluate different economic allocations. Before analyzing the effectiveness of policies aimed at correcting market failures, it is essential to be proficient in using this criterion to determine whether an allocation is Pareto efficient or if a Pareto improvement is possible.

Google

An allocation is defined as Pareto efficient if there is no other feasible allocation that can make at least one person better off without making anyone else worse off. In other words, a Pareto-efficient allocation is one that is not Pareto-dominated by any other possible outcome. This concept is a cornerstone of economic analysis for evaluating outcomes. Since the Pareto criterion is cautious, it's possible for multiple Pareto-efficient allocations to exist, and these may not always be considered fair or desirable. For instance, outcomes in perfectly competitive markets are often considered Pareto efficient.

Pareto Efficiency

To cite the ebook, use The CORE Econ Team 2023 The Economy 2.0: Microeconomics Open access e-text https://core-econ.org/the-economy/.

To cite a unit, use The CORE Econ Team 2023 The Economy 2.0: Microeconomics Open access e-text https://core-econ.org/the-economy/ Unit [unit number] (url).

CORE Econ - The Economy 2.0: Microeconomics

In the pest control game from Figure 4.7, the outcomes can be classified by their Pareto efficiency. Three allocations—(I, T), (I, I), and (T, I)—are Pareto efficient, meaning they are not Pareto-dominated by any other feasible outcome in the game. Conversely, the (T, T) allocation is not Pareto efficient because it is specifically Pareto-dominated by the (I, I) allocation.

Classification of Allocations by Pareto Efficiency in the Pest Control Game

A key feature of the Pareto criterion is its cautiousness in ranking outcomes, which often results in the existence of multiple Pareto-efficient allocations within a given situation. Because the criterion only rules out allocations that are dominated, it does not provide a way to rank different Pareto-efficient allocations against each other. Therefore, a game or economic interaction can have several outcomes that are all technically Pareto efficient.

Multiplicity of Pareto-Efficient Allocations

The Anil and Bala game serves as a clear example of an 'invisible hand game.' In this model, the Nash equilibrium is the (Cassava, Rice) strategy profile, which results in payoffs of 6 for both players. This outcome is achieved when each farmer independently pursues their own self-interest, leading to a mutually beneficial and Pareto-efficient allocation. They are guided by non-explicit forces, such as market prices, to specialize in the crop best suited for their land, securing the highest possible income for both.

The Anil and Bala Game as an Invisible Hand Game

The Pareto efficiency curve, also known as the contract curve, represents the complete set of all Pareto-efficient allocations. This set of points can often be described by a mathematical equation, which defines the relationship between the variables in the allocation (e.g., consumption and free time) for all efficient outcomes. The term 'Pareto efficiency curve' is generally preferred as 'contract curve' is sometimes used in contexts without a formal contract.

Pareto Efficiency Curve (Contract Curve)

The initial step in determining Pareto-efficient allocations for an interaction, such as the one between Angela and Bruno, is to analyze the preferences of the individuals involved. This means understanding which outcomes would be considered an improvement for each person.

The Role of Preferences in Identifying Pareto-Efficient Allocations

A standard method for identifying Pareto-efficient allocations involves solving a constrained optimization problem. This is achieved by maximizing one agent's payoff while keeping the payoffs of all other agents constant, and any allocation found through this method is guaranteed to be Pareto efficient. [2, 3] Crucially, this process is symmetrical; the same set of Pareto-efficient allocations is identified regardless of which agent's payoff is maximized. For instance, one could maximize a fisherman's utility given a fixed payoff for a plantation owner, or vice versa, and arrive at the same conclusions. In the Angela-Bruno model, this involves maximizing Angela's utility for a given amount of rent paid to Bruno; repeating this process for all possible rent levels reveals the entire set of Pareto-efficient allocations. [1]

Finding Pareto-Efficient Allocations by Maximizing One Agent's Utility

An allocation, such as the one involving consumption (c), rent (b), and free time (t), is considered Pareto efficient if and only if it simultaneously satisfies two conditions. The first condition is that the Marginal Rate of Substitution equals the Marginal Rate of Transformation (MRS = MRT). The second condition is that the allocation must be on the feasible frontier, ensuring all produced goods are consumed, which can be represented by the equation $c+b=g(24−t)$.

Conditions for a Pareto-Efficient Allocation

The gains from exchange that result from an economic interaction can be evaluated using two primary criteria. The first is Pareto efficiency, which assesses if it's possible to make someone better off without disadvantaging anyone else. The second criterion is fairness, which considers the equity of the distribution of these gains among the participants.

Criteria for Evaluating Gains from Exchange

Caution is necessary when using the Pareto efficiency concept. A primary reason is that a Pareto-efficient allocation is not automatically the 'best' or most desirable outcome, particularly if it is perceived as highly unequal or unfair. Therefore, even if a market allocation is determined to be Pareto efficient, it should not be accepted as desirable without further evaluation. Other criteria, especially fairness, are essential for a comprehensive assessment of an economic outcome.

Limitations of Pareto Efficiency: Fairness and Desirability

Despite the fact that the idealized conditions for perfect competition are rarely met in reality, the concept of a competitive equilibrium is a valuable benchmark. This is because it illustrates a state where the total surplus in the market is maximized. This benchmark is conditional on the absence of external effects on third parties; if such externalities exist, the equilibrium may not be Pareto efficient.

Competitive Equilibrium as a Benchmark for Market Efficiency

An allocation of resources is considered Pareto inefficient when decisions are made without accounting for their full social costs and benefits. This inefficiency implies that alternative feasible allocations exist that would make at least one person better off without making anyone worse off. Therefore, a fundamental condition for achieving Pareto efficiency is that decision-makers must internalize and consider all the impacts of their actions on other parties.

Learn Before

Related