A Unified Perspective on Resource Allocation: Limited Arbitrage is Necessary and Sufficient for the Existence of a Competitive Equilibrium, the Core and Social Choice

  • Graciela Chichilnisky
Part of the International Economic Association Series book series (IEA)

Abstract

Social diversity is central to resource allocation. People trade because they are different. Gains from trade and the scope for mutually advantageous reallocation depend on the diversity of the traders’ preferences and endowments. The market owes its existence to the diversity of those who make up the economy.

Keywords

Migration Manifold Rubber Income Lution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K. (1951) Social Choice and Individual Values (New York: John Wiley).Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. and Hahn, F. (1971) General Competitive Analysis (San Francisco and New York: North-Holland).Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. and Debreu, G. (1954) ‘Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy’, Econometrica vol. 22, pp. 264–90.Google Scholar
  4. Baryshnikov, Y. (1993) ‘Unifying Impossibility Theorems: A Topological Approach’, Advances in Applied Mathematics, vol. 14, pp. 404–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, D. (1948) ‘On the Rationale of Group Decision-Making’, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 56, pp. 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chichilnisky, G. (1976) ‘Manifolds of Preferences and Equilibria’, Discussion Paper of the Project on Efficiency of Decision Making in Economic Systems (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University).Google Scholar
  7. Chichilnisky, G. (1980a) ‘Social Choice and the Topology of Spaces of Preferences’, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 37, pp. 165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chichilnisky, G. (1980b) ‘Intersecting Families of Sets’, working paper, University of Essex.Google Scholar
  9. Chichilnisky, G. (1982) ‘Social Aggregation Rules and Continuity’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 97, pp. 337–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chichilnisky, G. (1986) ‘Topological Complexity of Manifolds of Preferences’, in Hildenbrand, W. and Mas-Colell, A. (eds), Essays in Honor of Gerard Debreu (New York: North-Holland), Chapter 8, pp. 131–42.Google Scholar
  11. Chichilnisky, G. (1991a) ‘Markets, Arbitrage and Social Choice’, working paper, 586, Columbia University, New York and CORE Discussion Paper, 9342, CORE, Univérsité Catholique de Louvain, Lou vain la Neuve, Belgium.Google Scholar
  12. Chichilnisky, G. (1991b) ‘Market Arbitrage, Social Choice and the Core’, forthcoming in Social Choice and Welfare.Google Scholar
  13. Chichilnisky, G. (1993a) ‘On Strategic Control’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 108, pp. 285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chichilnisky, G. (1993b) ‘The Cone Condition, Properness and Extremely Desirable Commodities’, Economic Theory, vol. 3, pp. 177–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chichilnisky, G. (1993c) ‘Topology and Economics: the Contribution of Stephen Smale’, in Hirsch, M., Marsden, J. and Shub, M. (eds), From Topology to Computation, Proceedings of the Smalefest (New York and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), pp. 147–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chichilnisky, G. (1993d) ‘Intersecting Families of Sets and the Topology of Cones in Economics’, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 29, pp. 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chichilnisky, G. (1994) ‘Limited Arbitrage, Gains from Trade and Social Diversity: A Unified Perspective on Resource Allocation’, American Economic Review, vol. 84, pp. 427–34.Google Scholar
  18. Chichilnisky, G. (1995a) ‘Limited Arbitrage is Necessary and Sufficient for the Existence of a Competitive Equilibrium With or Without Short Sales’, discussion paper no. 650, Columbia University, New York and Economic Theory, vol. 5, pp. 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chichilnisky, G. (1995b) ‘A Unified Perspective and Resource Allocation: Limited Arbitrage is Necessary and Sufficient for the Existence of a Competitive Equilibrium, the Core and Social Choice’, CORE Discussion Paper, no. 9527, Univérsité Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.Google Scholar
  20. Chichilnisky, G. (1996a) ‘Limited Arbitrage is Necessary and Sufficient for the Nonemptiness of the Core’, Economic Letters, vol. 52, pp. 177–86, previously published as ‘Limited Arbitrage is Necessary and Sufficient for the Existence of a Competitive Equilibrium and the Core and it Limits Voting Cycles’, Economic Letters, vol. 46, pp. 321–31, an issue subsequently reprinted without the paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chichilnisky, G. (1996b) ‘A Topological Invariant for Competitive Markets’, working paper, Columbia University, New York, forthcoming in Journal of Mathematical Economics.Google Scholar
  22. Chichilnisky, G. (1996c) ‘Limited Arbitrage is Necessary and Sufficient for the Existence of a Competitive Equilibrium’, Journal of Mathematical Economics, December.Google Scholar
  23. Chichilnisky, G. (1996d) ‘Topology and Invertible Maps’, working paper, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Chichilnisky, G. (1996e) ‘Limited Arbitrage and Uniqueness of Equilibrium in Strictly Regular Economies’, working paper, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  25. Chichilnisky, G. (1996f) ‘Markets and Games: A Simple Equivalence among the Core, Equilibrium and Limited Arbitrage’, Metroeconomica, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 266–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chichilnisky, G. and Heal, G. M. (1983) ‘Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for a Resolution of the Social Choice Paradox’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 31, pp. 68–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chichilnisky, G. and Heal, G. M. (1992) ‘Arbitrage and Equilibrium in Sobolev Spaces, First Boston Working Paper, Columbia University, revised as ‘Equilibrium and the Core with Finitely or Infinitely Many Markets: A Unified Approach’, forthcoming in Economic Theory.Google Scholar
  28. Chichilnisky, G. and Heal, G. M. (1993) ‘Existence of a Competitive Equilibrium in Sobolev Spaces without Bounds on Short Sales’, IMA Preprint series, 79, Institute for Mathematics and its Applications, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota (June 1984), and Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 59, pp. 364–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chichilnisky, G. and Kalman, P. J. (1980) ‘Application of Functional Analysis to the Efficient Allocation of Economic Resources’, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Debreu, G. (1959) The Theory of Value (New York: John Wiley).Google Scholar
  31. Debreu, G. (1962) ‘New Concepts and Techniques in Equilibrium Analysis’, International Economic Review, vol. 3, pp. 257–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grandmont, J.-M. (1982) ‘Temporary Equilibrium’, in Arrow, K. and Intriligator, M. D. (eds), Handbook of Mathematical Economics (New York: North-Holland).Google Scholar
  33. Green, J. (1973) ‘Temporary Equilibrium in a Sequential Trading Model with Spot and Futures Transactions’, Econometrica, vol. 41, pp. 1103–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hammond, P. J. (1983) ‘Overlapping Expectations and Hart’s Conditions for Equilibrium in a Securities Market’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 31, pp. 170–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hart, O. (1974) ‘Existence of Equilibrium in a Securities Model’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 9, pp, 293–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heal, G. M. (1983) ‘Contractibility and Public Decision Making’, in Pattanaik, P. K. and Salles, S. (eds), Social Choice and Welfare (New York: North-Holland), Chapter 7.Google Scholar
  37. Koutsougeras, L. (1983) ‘The Core in Two-stage Games’, working paper, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
  38. Kreps, D. (1981) ‘Arbitrage and Equilibrium in Economies with Infinitely Many Commodities’, Journal of Mathematical Economics, vol. 8, pp. 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Le Van, A. (1996) ‘Complete Characterization of Yannelis-Zame and Chichilnisky-Kalman-Mas Colell Properness Conditions on Preferences for Separable Concave Functions Defined on \(L_ + ^p\) and Lp’, Economic Theory, vol. 8, pp. 155–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKenzie, L. (1959) ‘On the Existence of a General Equilibrium for Competitive Markets’, Econometrica, vol. 27, pp. 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McKenzie, L. (1987) ‘General Equilibrium’ in Eatwell, J., Milgate, M. and Newman, P. (eds), General Equilibrium, The New Palgrave (New York: Norton).Google Scholar
  42. McKenzie, L. (1961) ‘On the Existence of General Equilibrium: Some Corrections’, Econometrica, vol. 29, pp. 247–8.Google Scholar
  43. Monteiro, P., Page, F. and Wooders, M. (1996) ‘Arbitrage Equilibrium and Gains From Trade: A Counterexample’, forthcoming in Journal of Mathematical Economics.Google Scholar
  44. Negishi, T. (1960) ‘Welfare Economics and the Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy’, Metroeconomica, vol. 2, pp. 92–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nielsen, L. 1989) ‘Asset Market Equilibrium with Short Selling’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 56, pp. 467–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Page, F. (1987) ‘Notes and Comments to the Editor: On Equilibrium in Hart’s Securities Exchange Model’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 41, pp. 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Page, F. (1996) ‘Arbitrage and Asset Prices’, forthcoming in Mathematical Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  48. Page, F. and Wooders, M. (1994) ‘Arbitrage in Markets with Unbounded Short Sales: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Non-emptiness of the Core and Existence of Equilibrium’, working paper, no. 9409, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  49. Spanier, E. (1979) Algebraic Topology (New York: McGraw-Hill).Google Scholar
  50. Werner, J. (1987) ‘Arbitrage and the Existence of Competitive Equilibrium’, Econometrica, vol. 55, pp. 1403–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Economic Association 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graciela Chichilnisky
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Columbia UniversityUSA
  2. 2.UNESCOUSA

Personalised recommendations