Revealed cardinal preference

I prove that as long as we allow the marginal utility for money (lambda) to vary between purchases (similarly to the budget) then the quasi-linear and the ordinal budget-constrained models rationalize the same data. However, we know that lambda is approximately constant. I provide a simple constructive proof for the necessary and sufficient condition for the constant lambda rationalization, which I argue should replace the Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preference in empirical studies of consumer behavior. 'Go Cardinals!' It is the minimal requirement of any scientifi c theory that it is consistent with the data it is trying to explain. In the case of (Hicksian) consumer theory it was revealed preference -introduced by Samuelson (1938,1948) - that provided an empirical test to satisfy this need. At that time most of economic reasoning was done in terms of a competitive general equilibrium, a concept abstract enough so that it can be built on the ordinal preferences over baskets of goods - even if the extremely specialized ones of Arrow and Debreu. However, starting in the sixties, economics has moved beyond the 'invisible hand' explanation of how -even competitive- markets operate. A seemingly unavoidable step of this 'revolution' was that ever since, most economic research has been carried out in a partial equilibrium context. Now, the partial equilibrium approach does not mean that the rest of the markets are ignored, rather that they are held constant. In other words, there is a special commodity -call it money - that reflects the trade-offs of moving purchasing power across markets. As a result, the basic building block of consumer behavior in partial equilibrium is no longer the consumer's preferences over goods, rather her valuation of them, in terms of money. This new paradigm necessitates a new theory of revealed preference.

Contracting over Prices

We defi ne a solution concept, perfectly contracted equilibrium, for an intertemporal exchange economy where agents are simultaneously price takers in spot commodity markets while engaging in non-Walrasian contracting over future prices. In a setting with subjective uncertainty over future prices, we show that perfectly contracted equi- librium outcomes are a subset of Pareto optimal allocations. It is a robust possibility for perfectly contracted equilibrium outcomes to di er from Arrow-Debreu equilibrium outcomes. We show that both centralized banking and retrading with bilateral contracting can lead to perfectly contracted equilibria.

Nondictatorial Arrovian Social Welfare Functions: An Integer Programming Approach

In the line opened by Kalai and Muller (1997), we explore new conditions on prefernce domains which make it possible to avoid Arrow's impossibility result. In our main theorem, we provide a complete characterization of the domains admitting nondictorial Arrovian social welfare functions with ties (i.e. including indifference in the range) by introducing a notion of strict decomposability. In the proof, we use integer programming tools, following an approach first applied to social choice theory by Sethuraman, Teo and Vohra ((2003), (2006)). In order to obtain a representation of Arrovian social welfare functions whose range can include indifference, we generalize Sethuraman et al.'s work and specify integer programs in which variables are allowed to assume values in the set {0, 1/2, 1}: indeed, we show that, there exists a one-to-one correspondence between solutions of an integer program defined on this set and the set of all Arrovian social welfare functions - without restrictions on the range.

Integer Programming on Domains Containing Inseparable Ordered Paris

Using the integer programming approach introduced by Sethuraman, Teo, and Vohra (2003), we extend the analysis of the preference domains containing an inseparable ordered pair, initiated by Kalai and Ritz (1978). We show that these domains admit not only Arrovian social welfare functions \without ties," but also Arrovian social welfare functions \with ties," since they satisfy the strictly decomposability condition introduced by Busetto, Codognato, and Tonin (2012). Moreover, we go further in the comparison between Kalai and Ritz (1978)'s inseparability and Arrow (1963)'s single-peak restrictions, showing that the former condition is more \respectable," in the sense of Muller and Satterthwaite (1985).