Introduction to Mathematical Economics
Matteo Marsili, The Abdus Salam ICTP
Lectures:
Individual Rationality (Chapter 1 MasColell)
Choice under uncertainty (Chapter 6 MasColell)
Social choice and voting (Ch 21 Mas Colell, Ch 23 Easley) [Lect. notes]
Incomplete information (preliminaries on zero sum games and R. Aumann's lecture)
Evolutionary game theory (by J. Maynard-Smith)
Imitation and learning
Introduction and overview:
The aim of the course is to provide a (personal) conceptual map of how economists have tried to formalize economic behavior, from that of individuals to that of societies.
This corpus of ideas, that I call mathematical economics, provides a rather idealized picture of how individuals, societies, economies and financial markets behave. This approach is based on utilitarianism, which assumes that individuals behave in a way to optimise their well being, i.e. that individuals are rational. So we shall discuss:
- individual rational decision making (choice theory)
- how this aggregates at the level of a society (social choice theory)
- rational behavior of interacting individuals (game theory)
- interactions mediated by markets (General Equilibrium Theory)
- market behavior in time, under uncertainty (financial markets).
In reality, we know that individuals do not always take rational choices, that when they interact they do not behave as game theory would suggest and that economies and financial markets do not work as the theory predicts (as explained by Alan Kirman). Why did economics developed so much in spite of all its failures? Partly because it is not only a descriptive discipline - like physics - that aims at describing how a system works. It also aims at discussing how an economic system should be. In other words, economics cares also about normative aspects, those that should inform policy. These need to be based on some explainable rationale. There is one way to be rational and many ways to be irrational, each of which is arbitrary. The effort to trace back economic behavior to rational choices is the least non-ambiguous manner to discipline our discussion on how economies should work. In addition, even if it fails in its predictions, mathematical economics still has its value because the way it fails indicates what needs to be understood.
Understanding the economic nature of private property or taxes, how elections work, can help us discipline the discussion on these issues. Theorems cannot take responsibility for economic or political decisions, yet they may help create consensus on how to take complex decisions.
Finally, the collective behaviour of socio-economic systems is interesting in itself, for the variety of emergent behaviours that it displays.
Limited time only allows for a rather sketchy introduction to these topics, focusing on the main ideas. Yet I hope the course can serve as a guide for those interested to delve further into these subjects.
This page contains resources for the course, divided into lectures (and it may be updated during the course).
Italic links point to background and reading material
Bold links point to video content
Link to the Exercises
Reference textbooks:
MasColell Microeconomic Theory, A. Mas-Colell, M.D. Whinston and J.R. Green (OUP, '95)
Easley Networks, Crowds and Markets, D. Easley, J. Kleinberg (CUP, 2010)
Gibbons R. Gibbons, A primer in game theory (Prentice Hall, 1992)
Introduction to mathematical finance, S. R. Pliska (Blackwell, 1997)
I'd like you to reflect upon the lecture on micro-economic theory by Jon Gruber and its implications. After listening the lecture, you may ask: Is micro-economics really describing how individuals behave in an economy, or has it been shaping the way individuals think about their choices. The example of queuing for a ticket concert is interesting. 30 years ago fans were queuing because they wanted to see their rock star no matter what and prices were not fixed by the market. Today prices are fixed by the market, but those who can afford to buy a ticket of a concert are not necessarily those that would appreciate that experience more than those who do not. The example of kidneys on e-bay is also interesting. None of the arguments discusses the fact that allowing a market mechanism to trade organs puts a price on something that maybe not all of us agree it should have a price and on a practice (donating organs) that maybe should not be based on economic incentives (for example society decided that there should be no markets for things like slavery or cocaine). The expansion of other markets (e.g. mortgages, financial derivatives, weapons) went on unfettered without much discussion on their possible adverse effects on society. Should then society decide on whatever can be traded or not?
Deep rooted in this style of economic thinking is the idea that individuals really have something like an utility function (i.e. that my kidney is associated with a set of equivalent alternative goods I'm indifferent about) and that putting prices on everything achieves efficient allocations (or conversely, that allocation failures in an economy is due to "missing markets" and that the introduction of markets can solve the problem). Maybe you realize how strong these assumptions on human nature are, and the fact that the expansions of markets are promoting these assumptions into every day's individual behavior.
terms: unintended consequences