Econ 522 Economics of Law Dan Quint Spring 2011 Lecture 3 HW1 is online (due 5 p.m. Fri Feb 4) Also lecture notes – try View Notes Page Monday, we defined efficiency Efficiency: “no available Kaldor-Hicks improvements” roughly, maximizing total value, or total surplus, or total payoffs, to everyone in society… …where everything is translated into dollars, so we can add/compare across people Means that… each scarce resource is owned by whoever values it most goods are produced whenever their value is greater than their cost and so on And we discussed some forces that lead to inefficiency Externalities People make choices based on private cost and private benefit Efficiency is based on social cost and social benefit When social cost > private cost, negative externality people will do something more than efficient amount When social benefit > private benefit, positive externality people will do something less than efficient amount Barriers to trade, taxes Monopoly/private information And we asked: Should efficiency be the normative goal of the law? Posner: yes – ex-ante, we would all have agreed to efficient laws Analogy to lottery ticket with highest expected value Example for asymmetric situations (landlords and tenants) Limitations of efficiency as measure of societal “goodness” Ignores distribution of wealth ($1 = $1) Ignores procedural fairness (only considers outcomes) Value = willingness to pay Then we ran out of time Cooter and Ulen give a more pragmatic defense of efficiency as a goal for the law Cooter and Ulen (textbook ch. 1) Efficiency should not necessarily be the goal of society But efficiency should be the goal of the legal system If redistribution is desirable, it’s better to make the legal system efficient, and address distribution through taxes Cooter and Ulen offer four reasons why the tax system is a better way to redistribute wealth than the legal system Four reasons the tax system is a better way to redistribute wealth than the legal system 1. Taxes can target “rich” and “poor” more precisely than the legal system can 2. Distributional effects of legal changes are harder to predict 3. Lawyers are more expensive than accountants 4. More narrowly-targeted taxes cause greater distortion than broad-based taxes To make this last point, an example Two goods: beer (x), pizza (y) One consumer, with $60 and utility u(x,y) = x0.5 y0.5 a. Given prices p for beer and q for pizza, calculate demand. (x,y) = (30/p, 30/q) Beer and pizza are produced at $1 per unit, and perfectly competitive markets So without any taxes, p = q = $1 b. Calculate demand, and utility, with no tax. (x,y) = (30, 30) u(x,y) = 300.5 300.5 = 30 c. Calculate demand and utility with $0.50 tax on beer. (x,y) = (20, 30) u(x,y) = 200.5 300.5 = 6000.5 24.49 d. How much revenue does $0.50 tax on beer raise? 20 X $0.50 = $10 e. Calculate demand and utility with $0.20 tax on both goods. (x,y) = (25, 25) u(x,y) = 250.5 250.5 = 25 f. How much revenue does $0.20 tax on both goods raise? 25 X $0.20 + 25 X $0.20 = $10 g. Which is the better way to raise revenue? 7 So, summing up… is efficiency a good goal for the law? We’ve seen two arguments in favor Posner: it’s what we all would have agreed on ex-ante C&U: if you want to redistribute, it’s better to do it through taxes But there are definitely some problems with efficiency Distribution matters; not everything is monetizable; people might care about procedural fairness My take In this class, we’ll mostly focus on the positive questions But in the background, I think of efficiency as a “pretty good”, but definitely imperfect, measure of “goodness” Before we move on, a quick digression… I don’t have many “absolute beliefs” about economics Some people do I hope that doesn’t make things too confusing 9 Before we move on, a quick digression… I don’t have many “absolute beliefs” about economics Some people do I hope that doesn’t make things too confusing Relatedly, if I don’t see economics as a set of rules to memorize, how do I know what I know? I need to see a model, or an example, that demonstrates it 10 Rest of today: introduce some basic game theory begin property law 11 Some basic game theory 12 A brief introduction to game theory Today, we focus on static games Also known as simultaneous-move games A static game is completely described by three things: Who the players are What actions are available to each player What payoff each player will get, as a function of his own action, and the actions of the other players Any complete description of these three things fully characterizes a static game 13 A classic example: the Prisoner’s Dilemma (Story) Players: player 1 and player 2 Two actions available to each player: rat on the other, or keep mum Payoffs: u1(mum, mum) = -1 u1(rat, mum) = 0 u1(mum, rat) = -10 u1(rat,rat) = -5 Same for player 2 14 In two-player games with finite actions, one way to present game is payoff matrix Player 2’s Action Always Player 1 Mum Rat Mum -1, -1 -10, 0 Rat 0, -10 -5, -5 Player 1’s Action Player 1’s Payoff Player 2’s Payoff 15 Nash Equilibrium We solve a game by looking for a Nash equilibrium Nash equilibrium is a strategy profile (an action for each player) such that: No player can improve his payoff by switching to a different action… …given what his opponent/opponents are doing 16 A strategy profile is a Nash Equilibrium if no player can gain by deviating Is (Mum, Mum) an equilibrium? Player 2’s Action Player 1’s Action If any player can improve his payoff by changing his action, given his opponents’ actions, then it is not a Nash equilibrium Mum Rat Mum -1, -1 -10, 0 Rat 0, -10 -5, -5 No, if player 2 is playing Mum player 1 gains by deviating 17 In two-player games, we find Nash equilibria by highlighting best responses My best response to a particular play by the other player is whichever action(s) give me the highest payoff To find Nash Equilibria… Circle payoff from player 1’s Mum best response to each action by his opponent -1, -1 Mum Circle payoff from player 2’s best response to each action 0, -10 Rat Any box with both payoffs circled is an equilibrium Because each player is playing a best-response to his opponent’s action… …so neither one can improve by changing his strategy Player 1’s Action Player 2’s Action Rat -10, 0 -5, -5 18 Some games will have more than one equilibrium Another classic: Battle of the Sexes (Story) Circle player 2’s best responses We find two equilibria: (ballgame, ballgame) and (opera, opera) Player 1’s Action Circle player 1’s best responses Player 2’s Action Baseball Game Opera Baseball Game 6, 3 0, 0 Opera 0, 0 3, 6 Game theory usually doesn’t have that much to say about which equilibrium will get played when there are more than one 19 Sometimes, there will be a “good” and a “bad” equilibrium Growth model (Story) Circle player 2’s best responses Two equilibria: (invest, invest) and (consume, consume) Player 1’s Action Circle player 1’s best responses Player 2’s Action Invest Consume Invest 2, 2 0, 1 Consume 1, 0 1, 1 Some papers explain differences in growth across countries by saying some are in “good” equilibrium and some are in “bad” one 20 Some games don’t have any equilibrium where players only play one action Look for Nash Equilibria by circling best responses No square with both payoffs circled No equilibrium where each player plays a single action Player 1’s Action Scissors, Paper, Rock for $1 Player 2’s Action Scissors Paper Rock Scissors 0, 0 1, -1 -1, 1 Paper -1, 1 0, 0 1, -1 Rock 1, -1 -1, 1 0, 0 In this class, we’ll focus on games with a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium 21 That’s a very quick introduction to static games Now on to… 22 Property Law 23 Why do we need property law at all? In a sense, same question as, why do we prefer organized society of any sort to anarchy? Suppose there are two neighboring farmers Each can either farm his own land, or steal crops from his neighbor Stealing is less efficient than planting my own crops Have to carry the crops from your land to mine Might drop some along the way Have to steal at night move slower If I steal your crops, I avoid the effort of planting and watering 24 Why do we need property law? Suppose that planting and watering costs 5, the crops either farmer could grow are worth 15, and stealing costs 3 With no legal system, the game has the following payoffs: We look for equilibrium Player 1 Player 2 Farm Steal Farm 10, 10 -5, 12 Steal 12, -5 0, 0 Like Prisoner’s Dilemma both farmers stealing is the only equilibrium but that outcome is Pareto-dominated by both farmers farming 25 So how do we fix the problem? Suppose there were lots of farmers facing this same problem They come up with an idea: Institute some property rights And some type of government that would punish people who steal Setting up the system would cost something Suppose it imposes a cost c on everyone who plays by the rules 26 ORIGINAL GAME MODIFIED GAME Player 2 Player 2 Farm Steal Farm 10, 10 -5, 12 Steal 12, -5 0, 0 Farm Player 1 Player 1 So how do we fix the problem? Steal Farm 10 – c, 10 – c -5 – c, 12 – P Steal 12 – P, -5 – c -P, -P If P is big, and c is not too big, then 12 – P < 10 – c In that case, (Farm, Farm) is an equilibrium Payoffs are (10 – c, 10 – c), instead of (0, 0) from before 27 So the idea here… Anarchy is inefficient I spend time and effort stealing from you You spend time and effort defending your property from thieves Instead of doing productive work Establishing property rights, and a legal process for when they’re violated, is one way around the problem 28 Overview of Property Law Cooter and Ulen: property is “A bundle of legal rights over resources that the owner is free to exercise and whose exercise is protected from interference by others” Property rights are not absolute Appendix to ch. 4 discusses different conceptions of property rights Any system has to answer four fundamental questions: What things can be privately owned? What can (and can’t) an owner do with his property? How are property rights established? What remedies are given when property rights are violated? 29 Answers to many of these seem obvious BUT… source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21088150/ 30 Monday: Coase Please see me if you’re not yet registered Take a look at Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost” Have a good weekend 31