Under certain reasonable conditions for a growth model, the path of adjustment between steady states generated by a change in an exogenous policy variable is solved for explicitly. The overall welfare effect is then shown to be a weighted average of the short- and long-run effects for a large class of social welfare functions. These results are applied to a simple neoclassical growth model for the purpose of investigating the dynamic incidence of a labor income tax. Contrary to the claims of previous investigators, the long-run effect is shown to be more important for a wide range of parameter values.

This paper examines the nature of rational choice in strategic games.Although there are many reasons why an agent might select a Nash equilibrium strategy in a particular game, rationality alone does not require him to do so.A natural extension of widely accepted axioms for rational choice under uncertainty to strategic environments generates an alternative class of strategies, labelled "rationalizable."It is argued that no rationalizable strategy can be discarded on the basis of rationality alone, and that all rationally justifiable strategies are members of the rationalizable set.The properties of rationalizable strategies are studied, and refinements are considered.PROOF OF PROPOSITION 5.5: Since under the specified conditionsf(-) is a contraction mapping, Nash equilibrium is unique.We need only show P(G) = N*(G).Since P(G) is the intersection of an infinite sequence of compact, nested sets, it is compact.Consequently, we can define di = max d(s,, s,).s,,s, E-P,(G) Assume without loss of generality that d, > di Vi > 1.If point rationalizable strategies are not unique, then di > 0. Let s' and sj' be the strategies for which d(s'1, sj') = dl.There must exist t', t' e P(G)such that fl(t') = sj, and fl(t") = sj', with g,(t') = v1(t") (the first component doesn't effect fl( )).Now d(t', t") < ( d2 ) < d1(I-1)1/2. (i=2 J Further, d(f(t'), f(t")) > d(s', sj') = dl.So d(f(t), ft"))> d(t, t"I(I 1 ,/2

This paper extends pre-existing results concerning voluntary private funding of public goods. The assumption that individuals care about themagnitude of their own contributions only insofar as these contributions affect the aggregate level of expenditures is shown to have untenable implications. The analysis suggests that a reexaminationof the factors that motivate individuals to make contributions is in order.

This paper analyzes a model in which individuals care about both consumption (intrinsic utility) and social status. Status depends on public perceptions about an individual's predispositions rather than on the individual's actions. However, since predispositions are unobservable, actions signal predispositions and therefore affect status. When status is sufficiently important relative to intrinsic utility, many individuals conform to a rigid standard of behavior, despite heterogeneous intrinsic preferences. When status is relatively unimportant, no conformity emerges. The model produces both customs and fads, and it suggests an explanation for the development of multiple subcultures with distinct norms.

This paper presents new empirical evidence in support of the view that a significant fraction of total saving is motivated by the desire to leave bequests. Specifically, the author finds that social security annuity benefits significantly raise life insurance holdings and depress private annuity holdings among elderly individuals. These patterns indicate that the typical household would choose to maintain a positive fraction of its resources in bequeathable forms, even if insurance markets were perfect. Evidence on the relationship between insurance purchases and total resources reinforces this conclusion.

We consider the properties of equilibrium behaviour in an aggregative growth model with intergenerational altruism. Various positive properties such as the cyclicity of equilibrium programs, and the convergence of equilibrium stocks to a steady state, are analyzed. Among other normative properties, it is established that under certain natural conditions, Nash equilibrium programs are efficient and “modified Pareto optimal” in a sense made clear in the paper, but never Pareto optimal in the traditional sense.

Strotz (1956) and Pollak (1968) were among the first to study the behaviour of an economic agent whose preferences change over time. They suggested that such an agent would choose a “consistent plan” which they described as “the best plan that he would actually follow”. A Markov-consistent plan has a particularly simple structure: current decisions are independent of past decisions, except insofar as past decisions affect the current values of state variables. Unfortunately, Markov-consistent plans do not generally exist. In this paper, we demonstrate that the existence problem dissappears for finite horizon problems when one introduces even a small amount of smooth uncertainty into production.

In many examples of competitive bidding (e.g., government construction contracting) the relevant object is either partially divisible or ill-defined, in contrast to much of the recent theoretical work on auctions. In this paper we consider a more general class of auctions, in which bidders name a “menu” of offers for various possible actions (allocations) available to the auctioneer. We focus upon “first-price” menu auctions under the assumption of complete information, and show that, for an attractive refinement of the set of Nash Equilibria, an efficient action always results. Our model also has application to situations of economic influence, in which interested parties independently attempt to influence a decision-maker's action.

We study social preferences in settings where someone who chooses on behalf of others knows how those individuals rank the available options but may lack cardinal information concerning those comparisons. Contrary to majoritarian principles, most people place more weight on preventing least preferred outcomes for others than on enabling most preferred outcomes. Ranks matter both intrinsically and because they provide a basis for inferring cardinal utility. Ordinal aggregation principles are stable across domains and countries with divergent political traditions. Designing attractive social choice mechanisms is challenging in practice partly because aggregation principles that make manipulation difficult yield outcomes people consider normatively unappealing.

The authors propose and implement a new test of the dividend signaling hypothesis. Dividend signaling models generally imply that an increase in dividend taxation should increase the share price response per dollar of dividends (or 'bang-for-the-buck'). Many other dividend-preference theories have the opposite implication. An analysis of recent variations in tax policy reveals a strong positive relation between dividend tax rates and the bang-for-the-buck. Additional evidence on the relation between the bang-for-the-buck and other variables that are related to the marginal cost of paying dividends provides further support for dividend signaling.