The Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem shows that an economy with externalities or distortions associated with imperfect information and incomplete markets is in general not constrained Pareto optimal, and there exist government interventions such as taxes and subsidies to make a Pareto improvement.
The constrained Pareto inefficiency of the economy was established by Bruce Greenwald and Joseph Stiglitz, and it shed light on the First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics. It helps consider the welfare consequences of policy interventions, treating distortions arising from imperfections as technological externalities. It also presents that pecuniary externalities have significant effects in economies with distortions, and they have significant welfare consequences. Furthermore, it raises the possibilities of boosting Pareto efficiency by quotas even if a tax-subsidy system does not work.
Introduction In a situation where individual actions have unintended consequences on others, the market fails to make the optimal allocation of resources. And the constrained Pareto inefficiency is common in markets as externality-like effects and distortions arise from information imperfection and incomplete markets. This creates a case for government intervention to correct market inefficiencies and ensure overall wellbeing. In moral hazard models, for example, the individual opts for a certain level of care and takes the premium as given, based on their own self-interest, knowing that insurance providers cannot accurately track their behaviour. Meanwhile, the cost of their insurance is influenced by the average level of accident avoidance of those who are insured -- that is, an individual purchaser suffers from an externality-like effect. Therefore, if all individuals choose to take greater precautions, the overall cost of insurance decreases, leading to a positive outcome for all individuals involved. Then, the government can encourage him to increase the level of care because subsidizing complements to care and taxing substitutes can affect consumption patterns. The distortion arising from the change in consumption patterns due to the government intervention leads to a second-order loss, but it is outweighed by a first-order effect resulting from the reduced premiums.
Sketch Let X {\displaystyle X} and q = ( q 1 , q 2 , … , q M ) {\displaystyle q=(q_{1},q_{2},\ldots ,q_{M})} be the vector of goods and the associated vector of consumer prices, respectively. And p H {\displaystyle p^{H}} is the accident probability for the case where the level of care is high, and p L {\displaystyle p^{L}} low care. Also, the parameters regarding contract { α , β } {\displaystyle \lbrace \alpha ,\beta \rbrace } are given, consisting of the net benefit α {\displaystyle \alpha } in the event of accident and the premium β {\displaystyle \beta } . For high care, the vector of goods is X H = p H X H 1 + ( 1 − p H ) X H 0 {\displaystyle X^{H}=p^{H}X^{H1}+(1-p^{H})X^{H0}} , where X H 1 {\displaystyle X^{H1}} is the consumption vector in the event of an accident and X H 0 {\displaystyle X^{H0}} no accident. Now the expected utility V H {\displaystyle V^{H}} for high care is maximized, under the social revenue constraint α p H = β ( 1 − p H ) + ( q − 1 ) X H {\displaystyle \alpha p^{H}=\beta (1-p^{H})+(q-1)X^{H}} and the self-selection constraint that the expected utility for low care is less than or equal to that for high care. As to the Lagrangian for the model,
L = V H + γ ( α p H − β ( 1 − p H ) − ( q − 1 ) X H ) + λ ( V H − V L ) {\displaystyle L=V^{H}+\gamma (\alpha p^{H}-\beta (1-p^{H})-(q-1)X^{H})+\lambda (V^{H}-V^{L})}
and its partial derivatives are evaluated at q=1; this corresponds to a case where there is no differential taxation
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
