The problem of arising the Pareto inefficient norm in relations “investor – government” type.

Sokolovskyi, Dmytro and Sokolovska, Olena (2013): The problem of arising the Pareto inefficient norm in relations “investor – government” type.

Abstract

The article deals with problem of forming of Pareto non-optimal norms of mutual behavior of investors and government in the process of decision-making related to financing of reduction of risks of investment activity in economy. The game-theoretical analysis suggests that inefficiency of arising norms is non-casual; it follows from the behavior of interactive parties. Empirical verification based on statistical data of OECD countries confirms in general the established conclusion.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: investors, government, economic behavior; game theory, Nash equilibrium, Pareto-optimality
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C72 - Noncooperative Games; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy > E22 - Investment ; Capital ; Intangible Capital ; Capacity; H - Public Economics > H3 - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents > H30 - General

References

1. Agnew, J. (2002): Inefficient Choices in 401(k) Plans: Evidence from Individual Level Data. 4th Annual Joint Conference for the Retirement Research Consortium “Directions for Social Security Reform”, 2002, May, pp. 1-41.

2. P. Anand, C. J. (1993): The ethical investor: Exploring dimensions of investment behavior. Cowton Journal of Economic Psychology, 1993, Vol. 14, Issue 2, June, pp. 377-385.

3. J. Berg, J. Dickhaut, K. (1995): McCabe Trust, Reciprocity and Social History, Games and Economic Behavior, 1995, 10, pp. 122-142.

4. Besley, T. (1994): How Do Market Failures Justify Interventions in Rural Credit Markets? The World Bank Research Observer, 1994, 9, 1, pp. 27-47.

5. G. Charness – R. Cobo-Reyes – N. Jimenez (2008): An Investment Game with Third-Party Intervention. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2008, Vol. 68, Issue 1, October, pp. 18-28.

6. G. Coricelli – L. González Morales – A. Mahlstedt (2006): The investment game with asymmetric information. Metroeconomica, 2006, 57:1, pp. 13-30.

7. Dennis Alexis Valin Dittrich – Werner Güth– Boris Maciejovsky (2005): Overconfidence in investment decisions: An experimental approach. The European Journal of Finance, 2005, 11, 6, pp. 471-491.

8. Gavin Cassar – Henry Friedman (2007): Does overconfidence affect entrepreneurial investment? Wharton Research Scholars Journal, 2007, April, N 5-1, pp. 1-31.

9. T. Funke – P. Klein (2010): Explaining Investment Decisions in the South African Biofuels Industry: A Game Theoretic Approach. 48th Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 2010, September 19-23, 24 p.

10. Georg Ch. Pflug – Alois Pichler – David Wozabal (2012): The 1/N investment strategy is optimal under high model ambiguity. Journal of Banking & Finance, 2012, Vol. 36, Issue (Month): 2 Pages: pp. 410-417.

11. G. W. Greenwood – R. Tymerski (2008): A Game-Theoretical Approach for Designing Market Trading Strategies. 2008 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG'08), pp. 316-322.

12. Kent D., D. Hirshleifer, S. Teoh (2002): Investor psychology in capital markets: evidence and policy implications. Journal of Monetary Economics, 2002, 49, pp. 139-209.

13. Iyengar, S. – E. Kamenica (2010): Choice Overload and Simplicity Seeking. Journal of Public Economics, 2010, Vol. 94, No. 7-8, pp. 530-539.

14. Kahneman, D. – A. Tversky (1979): Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, 1979.

15. Kirabaeva, K. (2011): Adverse Selection and Financial Crises. Bank of Canada Review, 2010-2011, Winter, pp. 11-19.

16. Victor De Miguel – Lorenzo Garlappi – Raman Uppal (2009) Optimal versus Naive Diversification: How Inefficient Is the 1/N Portfolio Strategy? The Review of Financial Studies, 2009, v 22, n 5, pp. 1915-1953.

17. C. Özden – F. J. Parodi (2004) Customs Unions and Foreign Investment: Theory and Evidence from Mercosur’s. Santiago, Auto Industry Working Papers Central Bank of Chile, N 282, 2004, 31 p.

18. Tapia, W. – J. Yermo (2007): Implications of Behavioural Economics for Mandatory. Individual Account Pension Systems, OECD Working Papers on Insurance and Private Pensions, 2007, No. 11, OECD Publishing, pp. 1-28.

19. Huisman, K.J.M. (2001): Technology Investment: A Game Theoretic Real Options Approach. Boston (MA, USA), Kluwer Academic Pub., 2001.

20. Tirole, J. (2006): Theory of Corporate Finance. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2006.

21. Tirole, J. (2012): Overcoming Adverse Selection: How Public Intervention Can Restore Market Functioning. American Economic Review, 2012, 102(1), pp. 29-59.

22. K. Zhu, Weyant J. P. (2003) Strategic Decisions of New Technology Adoption under Asymmetric Information: A Game-Theoretic Model. Decision Sciences, 2003? Vol. 34, Num. 4, pp. 1-33.

23. Sokolovska E. (2012): Оценка внедрения системы двойственного налогообложения доходов [Evaluation of implementation of dual income taxation system]. Економічний вісник університету: Зб. наук. праць учених і аспірантів, 2012, Випуск 18/3, Переяслав-Хмельницький, с. 260-266.