Search results

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction -- 1.1 A trivial case -- 1.2 Majority rule -- 1.3 The kingmaker scheme -- 1.4 Pollution -- 1.5 Street lighting -- 1.6 Land use -- 1.7 Summary -- 1.8 Background -- Exercises -- Performance criteria -- 2.1 Abstract economies -- 2.2 Privacy preservation -- 2.3 Individual rationality -- 2.4 Pareto optimality -- 2.5 Informational viability -- 2.6 Incentive compatibility -- 2.7 Summary -- 2.8 Background -- Exercises -- The Arrow-Debreu world -- 3.1 What is a commodity? -- 3.2 Private ownership -- 3.3 Walrasian competitive equilibrium -- 3.4 The first welfare theorem -- 3.5 Other properties -- 3.6 The second fundamental theorem -- 3.7 Public goods -- 3.8 The Groves-Ledyard mechanism -- 3.9 Consumption externalities in general -- 3.10 Summary -- 3.11 Background -- Exercises -- Uncertainty -- 4.1 Preferences and uncertainty -- 4.2 Production and uncertainty -- 4.3 Allocations and uncertainty -- 4.4 Pareto optimality and uncertainty -- 4.5 The Walrasian mechanism and uncertainty -- 4.6 Equilibrium with securities markets -- 4.7 Limitations of the Arrow-Debreu model -- 4.8 Competitive insurance markets -- 4.9 Pareto optimality reconsidered -- 4.10 Rational expectations equilibrium -- 4.11 The theory of teams -- 4.12 Summary -- 4.13 Background -- Exercises -- Incentive compatibility -- 5.1 Private goods -- 5.2 Private goods economies with many consumers -- 5.3 Public goods -- 5.4 Summary -- 5.5 Background -- Exercises -- Existence of a competitive equilibrium -- 6.1 Counterexamples -- 6.2 An abstract economy -- 6.3 The Walrasian mechanism as an abstract economy -- 6.4 The Shafer-Sonnenschein existence theorem -- 6.5 The role of the assumptions -- 6.6 Nonconvexity -- 6.7 The counterexamples reconsidered -- 6.8 Summary -- 6.9 Background -- Exercises.

SEVERAL DIMENSIONS OF NEED MAY INFLUENCE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS GOING TO THE STATE. THEREFORE ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF STATES SHOULD BE HELD CONSTANT WHEN COMPARING FUND ALLOCATION. EVIDENCE FOR 1978, SAYS THE AUTHOR, INDICATES THAT SNOWBELT STATES RECEIVED LESS FEDERAL FUNDS THAN SUNBELT STATES, EVEN ADJUSTING FOR DIFFERENT ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS.