Contract curve

Last updated
Blue curve of Pareto efficient points, at points of tangency of indifference curves in an Edgeworth box. If the initial allocations of the two goods are at a point not on this locus, then the two people can trade to a point on the efficient locus within the lens formed by the indifference curves that they were originally on. The set of all these efficient points that could be traded to is the contract curve.
In the graph below, the initial endowments of the two people are at point X, on Kelvin's indifference curve K1 and Jane's indifference curve J1. From there they could agree to a mutually beneficial trade to anywhere in the lens formed by these indifference curves. But the only points from which no mutually beneficial trade exists are the points of tangency between the two people's indifference curves, such as point E. The contract curve is the set of these indifference curve tangencies within the lens--it is a curve that slopes upward to the right and goes through point E. Contract-curve-on-edgeworth-box.svg
Blue curve of Pareto efficient points, at points of tangency of indifference curves in an Edgeworth box. If the initial allocations of the two goods are at a point not on this locus, then the two people can trade to a point on the efficient locus within the lens formed by the indifference curves that they were originally on. The set of all these efficient points that could be traded to is the contract curve.
In the graph below, the initial endowments of the two people are at point X, on Kelvin's indifference curve K1 and Jane's indifference curve J1. From there they could agree to a mutually beneficial trade to anywhere in the lens formed by these indifference curves. But the only points from which no mutually beneficial trade exists are the points of tangency between the two people's indifference curves, such as point E. The contract curve is the set of these indifference curve tangencies within the lens—it is a curve that slopes upward to the right and goes through point E.
Competitive equilibrium.jpg

In microeconomics, the contract curve or Pareto set [1] is the set of points representing final allocations of two goods between two people that could occur as a result of mutually beneficial trading between those people given their initial allocations of the goods. All the points on this locus are Pareto efficient allocations, meaning that from any one of these points there is no reallocation that could make one of the people more satisfied with his or her allocation without making the other person less satisfied. The contract curve is the subset of the Pareto efficient points that could be reached by trading from the people's initial holdings of the two goods. It is drawn in the Edgeworth box diagram shown here, in which each person's allocation is measured vertically for one good and horizontally for the other good from that person's origin (point of zero allocation of both goods); one person's origin is the lower left corner of the Edgeworth box, and the other person's origin is the upper right corner of the box. The people's initial endowments (starting allocations of the two goods) are represented by a point in the diagram; the two people will trade goods with each other until no further mutually beneficial trades are possible. The set of points that it is conceptually possible for them to stop at are the points on the contract curve.

Contents

However, most authors [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] identify the contract curve as the entire Pareto efficient locus from one origin to the other.

Any Walrasian equilibrium lies on the contract curve. As with all points that are Pareto efficient, each point on the contract curve is a point of tangency between an indifference curve of one person and an indifference curve of the other person. Thus, on the contract curve the marginal rate of substitution is the same for both people.

Example

Assume the existence of an economy with two agents, Octavio and Abby, who consume two goods X and Y of which there are fixed supplies, as illustrated in the above Edgeworth box diagram. Further, assume an initial distribution (endowment) of the goods between Octavio and Abby and let each have normally structured (convex) preferences represented by indifference curves that are convex toward the people's respective origins. If the initial allocation is not at a point of tangency between an indifference curve of Octavio and one of Abby, then that initial allocation must be at a point where an indifference curve of Octavio crosses one of Abby. These two indifference curves form a lens shape, with the initial allocation at one of the two corners of the lens. Octavio and Abby will choose to make mutually beneficial trades — that is, they will trade to a point that is on a better (farther from the origin) indifference curve for both. Such a point will be in the interior of the lens, and the rate at which one good will be traded for the other will be between the marginal rate of substitution of Octavio and that of Abby. Since the trades will always provide each person with more of one good and less of the other, trading results in movement upward and to the left, or downward and to the right, in the diagram.

The two people will continue to trade so long as each one's marginal rate of substitution (the absolute value of the slope of the person's indifference curve at that point) differs from that of the other person at the current allocation (in which case there will be a mutually acceptable trading ratio of one good for the other, between the different marginal rates of substitution). At a point where Octavio's marginal rate of substitution equals Abby's marginal rate of substitution, no more mutually beneficial exchange is possible. This point is called a Pareto efficient equilibrium. In the Edgeworth box, it is a point at which Octavio's indifference curve is tangent to Abby's indifference curve, and it is inside the lens formed by their initial allocations.

Thus the contract curve, the set of points Octavio and Abby could end up at, is the section of the Pareto efficient locus that is in the interior of the lens formed by the initial allocations. The analysis cannot say which particular point along the contract curve they will end up at — this depends on the two people's bargaining skills.

Mathematical explanation

In the case of two goods and two individuals, the contract curve can be found as follows. Here refers to the final amount of good 2 allocated to person 1, etc., and refer to the final levels of utility experienced by person 1 and person 2 respectively, refers to the level of utility that person 2 would receive from the initial allocation without trading at all, and and refer to the fixed total quantities available of goods 1 and 2 respectively.

subject to:

This optimization problem states that the goods are to be allocated between the two people in such a way that no more than the available amount of each good is allocated to the two people combined, and the first person's utility is to be as high as possible while making the second person's utility no lower than at the initial allocation (so the second person would not refuse to trade from the initial allocation to the point found); this formulation of the problem finds a Pareto efficient point on the lens, as far as possible from person 1's origin. This is the point that would be achieved if person 1 had all the bargaining power. (In fact, in order to create at least a slight incentive for person 2 to agree to trade to the identified point, the point would have to be slightly inside the lens.)

In order to trace out the entire contract curve, the above optimization problem can be modified as follows. Maximize a weighted average of the utilities of persons 1 and 2, with weights b and 1 – b, subject to the constraints that the allocations of each good not exceed its supply and subject to the constraints that both people's utilities be at least as great as their utilities at the initial endowments:

subject to:

where is the utility that person 1 would experience in the absence of trading away from the initial endowment. By varying the weighting parameter b, one can trace out the entire contract curve: If b = 1 the problem is the same as the previous problem, and it identifies an efficient point at one edge of the lens formed by the indifference curves of the initial endowment; if b = 0 all the weight is on person 2's utility instead of person 1's, and so the optimization identifies the efficient point on the other edge of the lens. As b varies smoothly between these two extremes, all the in-between points on the contract curve are traced out.

Note that the above optimizations are not ones that the two people would actually engage in, either explicitly or implicitly. Instead, these optimizations are simply a way for the economist to identify points on the contract curve.

See also

Related Research Articles

Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality is a situation where no action or allocation is available that makes one individual better off without making another worse off. The concept is named after Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923), Italian civil engineer and economist, who used the concept in his studies of economic efficiency and income distribution. The following three concepts are closely related:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indifference curve</span> Concept in economics

In economics, an indifference curve connects points on a graph representing different quantities of two goods, points between which a consumer is indifferent. That is, any combinations of two products indicated by the curve will provide the consumer with equal levels of utility, and the consumer has no preference for one combination or bundle of goods over a different combination on the same curve. One can also refer to each point on the indifference curve as rendering the same level of utility (satisfaction) for the consumer. In other words, an indifference curve is the locus of various points showing different combinations of two goods providing equal utility to the consumer. Utility is then a device to represent preferences rather than something from which preferences come. The main use of indifference curves is in the representation of potentially observable demand patterns for individual consumers over commodity bundles.

The theory of consumer choice is the branch of microeconomics that relates preferences to consumption expenditures and to consumer demand curves. It analyzes how consumers maximize the desirability of their consumption, by maximizing utility subject to a consumer budget constraint. Factors influencing consumers' evaluation of the utility of goods include: income level, cultural factors, product information and physio-psychological factors.

In economics, the marginal rate of substitution (MRS) is the rate at which a consumer can give up some amount of one good in exchange for another good while maintaining the same level of utility. At equilibrium consumption levels, marginal rates of substitution are identical. The marginal rate of substitution is one of the three factors from marginal productivity, the others being marginal rates of transformation and marginal productivity of a factor.

Welfare economics is a field of economics that applies microeconomic techniques to evaluate the overall well-being (welfare) of a society. This evaluation is typically done at the economy-wide level, and attempts to assess the distribution of resources and opportunities among members of society.

In economics and particularly in consumer choice theory, the income-consumption curve is a curve in a graph in which the quantities of two goods are plotted on the two axes; the curve is the locus of points showing the consumption bundles chosen at each of various levels of income.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edgeworth box</span>

In economics, an Edgeworth box, sometimes referred to as an Edgeworth-Bowley box, is a graphical representation of a market with just two commodities, X and Y, and two consumers. The dimensions of the box are the total quantities Ωx and Ωy of the two goods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Complementary good</span>

In economics, a complementary good is a good whose appeal increases with the popularity of its complement. Technically, it displays a negative cross elasticity of demand and that demand for it increases when the price of another good decreases. If is a complement to , an increase in the price of will result in a negative movement along the demand curve of and cause the demand curve for to shift inward; less of each good will be demanded. Conversely, a decrease in the price of will result in a positive movement along the demand curve of and cause the demand curve of to shift outward; more of each good will be demanded. This is in contrast to a substitute good, whose demand decreases when its substitute's price decreases.

Edgeworth's limit theorem is an economic theorem, named after Francis Ysidro Edgeworth, stating that the core of an economy shrinks to the set of Walrasian equilibria as the number of agents increases to infinity.

In economics, an ordinal utility function is a function representing the preferences of an agent on an ordinal scale. Ordinal utility theory claims that it is only meaningful to ask which option is better than the other, but it is meaningless to ask how much better it is or how good it is. All of the theory of consumer decision-making under conditions of certainty can be, and typically is, expressed in terms of ordinal utility.

There are two fundamental theorems of welfare economics. The first states that in economic equilibrium, a set of complete markets, with complete information, and in perfect competition, will be Pareto optimal. The requirements for perfect competition are these:

  1. There are no externalities and each actor has perfect information.
  2. Firms and consumers take prices as given.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Local nonsatiation</span> Consumer preferences property

In microeconomics, the property of local nonsatiation (LNS) of consumer preferences states that for any bundle of goods there is always another bundle of goods arbitrarily close that is strictly preferred to it.

Competitive equilibrium is a concept of economic equilibrium, introduced by Kenneth Arrow and Gérard Debreu in 1951, appropriate for the analysis of commodity markets with flexible prices and many traders, and serving as the benchmark of efficiency in economic analysis. It relies crucially on the assumption of a competitive environment where each trader decides upon a quantity that is so small compared to the total quantity traded in the market that their individual transactions have no influence on the prices. Competitive markets are an ideal standard by which other market structures are evaluated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Utility–possibility frontier</span> Welfare economics concept

In welfare economics, a utility–possibility frontier, is a widely used concept analogous to the better-known production–possibility frontier. The graph shows the maximum amount of one person's utility given each level of utility attained by all others in society. The utility–possibility frontier (UPF) is the upper frontier of the utility possibilities set, which is the set of utility levels of agents possible for a given amount of output, and thus the utility levels possible in a given consumer Edgeworth box. The slope of the UPF is the trade-off of utilities between two individuals. The absolute value of the slope of the utility-possibility frontier showcases the utility gain of one individual at the expense of utility loss of another individual, through a marginal change in outputs. Therefore, it can be said that the frontier is the utility maximisation by consumers given an economies' endowment and technology. This means that points on the curve are, by definition, Pareto efficient, which are represented by E, F and G in the image to the right. Meanwhile the points that do not lie on this curve are not Pareto efficient, as shown by point H. The utility possibility frontier also represents a social optimum, as any point on the curve is a maximisation of the given social welfare function.

In economics and other social sciences, preference refers to the order in which an agent ranks alternatives based on their relative utility. The process results in an "optimal choice". Preferences are evaluations and concern matter of value, typically in relation to practical reasoning. An individual's preferences are determined purely by a person's tastes as opposed to the good's prices, personal income, and the availability of goods. However, people are still expected to act in their best (rational) interest. In this context, rationality would dictate that an individual will select the option that maximizes self-interest when given a choice. Moreover, in every set of alternatives, preferences arise.

A Robinson Crusoe economy is a simple framework used to study some fundamental issues in economics. It assumes an economy with one consumer, one producer and two goods. The title "Robinson Crusoe" is a reference to the 1719 novel of the same name authored by Daniel Defoe.

Equitable (EQ) cake-cutting is a kind of a fair cake-cutting problem, in which the fairness criterion is equitability. It is a cake-allocation in which the subjective value of all partners is the same, i.e., each partner is equally happy with his/her share. Mathematically, that means that for all partners i and j:

Efficiency and fairness are two major goals of welfare economics. Given a set of resources and a set of agents, the goal is to divide the resources among the agents in a way that is both Pareto efficient (PE) and envy-free (EF). The goal was first defined by David Schmeidler and Menahem Yaari. Later, the existence of such allocations has been proved under various conditions.

Envy-free (EF) item allocation is a fair item allocation problem, in which the fairness criterion is envy-freeness - each agent should receive a bundle that they believe to be at least as good as the bundle of any other agent.

In economics and computer science, Fractional Pareto efficiency or Fractional Pareto optimality (fPO) is a variant of Pareto efficiency used in the setting of fair allocation of discrete objects. An allocation of objects is called discrete if each item is wholly allocated to a single agent; it is called fractional if some objects are split among two or more agents. A discrete allocation is called Pareto-efficient (PO) if it is not Pareto-dominated by any discrete allocation; it is called fractionally Pareto-efficient (fPO) if it is not Pareto-dominated by any discrete or fractional allocation. So fPO is a stronger requirement than PO: every fPO allocation is PO, but not every PO allocation is fPO.

References

  1. Varian, Hal R. (2010). Intermediate microeconomics : a modern approach (8 ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN   978-0-393-93424-3. OCLC   317920200.
  2. Varian, Hal R. Microeconomic analysis, third edition, 1992, page 324.
  3. Nicholson, Walter. Snyder, Christopher. "Intermediate Microeconomics and Its Application", eleventh edition, 2010, page 362.
  4. Pindyke, Robert S. Rubinfeld, Daniel L. "Microeconomics", ninth edition, 2018, page 620.
  5. Jehle, Geoffrey L. Reny, Philip J. "Advanced Microeconomic Theory", third edition, 2011, page 197.
  6. Perloff Jeffrey M. "Microeconomics, Theory and Applications with Calculus", fifth edition, page 338.
  7. Browning,Edgar K. Zupan, Mark, A. "Microeconomics, Theory and Applications", twelfth edition, 2015, page 148.
  8. Kreps, David M. "A Course in Microeconomic Theory", 1990, page 156.
  9. Serrano, Roberto. Feldman, Alan M. "A Short Course in Intermediate Microeconomics with Calculus", 2013, page 271.