Abstract

Frequent violations of fair principles in real-life settings raise the fundamental question of whether such principles can guarantee the existence of a self-enforcing equilibrium in a free economy. We show that elementary principles of distributive justice guarantee that a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium exists in a finite economy where agents freely (and non-cooperatively) choose their inputs and derive utility from their pay. Chief among these principles is that: 1) your pay should not depend on your name, and 2) a more productive agent should not earn less. When these principles are violated, an equilibrium may not exist. Moreover, we uncover an intuitive condition---technological monotonicity---that guarantees equilibrium uniqueness and efficiency. We generalize our findings to economies with social justice and inclusion, implemented in the form of progressive taxation and redistribution, and guaranteeing a basic income to unproductive agents. Our analysis uncovers a new class of strategic form games by incorporating normative principles into non-cooperative game theory. Our results rely on no particular assumptions, and our setup is entirely non-parametric. Illustrations of the theory include applications to exchange economies, surplus distribution in a firm, contagion and self-enforcing lockdown in a networked economy, and bias in the academic peer-review system.

Highlights

  • It is generally acknowledged that justice is the foundation of a stable, cohesive, and productive society.1 violations of fair principles are highly prevalent in real-life settings

  • We prove that four elementary principles of distributive justice, of long tradition in economic theory, guarantee the existence of a pure strategy Nash equilibrium in finite games

  • We examine how elementary principles of justice and ethics, of long tradition in economic theory, affect individual incentives in a competitive environment and determine the existence and efficiency of self-enforcing social contracts

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is generally acknowledged that justice is the foundation of a stable, cohesive, and productive society. violations of fair principles are highly prevalent in real-life settings. Discriminations based on race, gender, culture and several other factors have been widely documented (see, for instance, Reimers [1983], Wright and Ermisch [1991], Sen [1992], Bertrand and Mullainathan [2004], Anderson and Ray [2010], Pongou and Serrano [2013], Goldin et al [2017], Bapuji et al [2020], Hyland et al [2020], Card et al [2020], and Koffi and Wantchekon [Forthcoming]) These realities raise the fundamental question of how basic principles of justice affect individual incentives, and whether such principles can guarantee the stability and efficiency of contracts among private agents in a free and competitive economy.

B: Under which conditions do fair principles lead to equilibrium efficiency ?
Unproductivity
A free economy
A free and fair economy
Equilibrium existence in a free and fair economy
A free and fair economy as a strategic form game
Existence of an equilibrium
Equilibrium efficiency in a free and fair economy
A free economy with social justice and inclusion
Equilibrium existence and efficiency in a free economy with social justice
Choosing a reference point to achieve equilibrium efficiency
Some applications
Teamwork: surplus distribution in a firm
Contagion and self-enforcing lockdown in a networked economy
Bias in academic publishing
Exchange economies
Markets with transferable payoff
Contributions to the closely related literature
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call