<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- name="generator" content="blosxom/2.0" -->
<!DOCTYPE rss PUBLIC "-//Netscape Communications//DTD RSS 0.91//EN" "http://my.netscape.com/publish/formats/rss-0.91.dtd">

<rss version="0.91">
  <channel>
    <title>Notebooks   </title>
    <link>http://bactra.org/notebooks</link>
    <description>Cosma's Notebooks</description>
    <language>en</language>

  <item>
    <title>Duality between Knowledge Centralization and Market Completeness?</title>
    <link>http://bactra.org/notebooks/2004/08/01#market-knowledge-duality</link>
    <description>
&lt;P&gt;This is a seriously underbaked thought, inspired by listening to
&lt;a href=&quot;http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/durfee/&quot;&gt;Ed Durfee&lt;/a&gt; talk about his
work on coordinating plans in &lt;a href=&quot;multi-agent-systems.html&quot;&gt;multi-agent
systems&lt;/a&gt;.  (Prof. Durfee is in no way responsible for it.)

&lt;P&gt;A key and persuasive part of the Austrian (von Mises/Hayek) critique of
central planning is the knowledge problem --- that it is not possible to
centralize all the knowledge which would be required to solve the social
allocation problem, and that it would be computationally infeasible even if you
could.  (Hayek, in particular, would say that it's not possible even
to &lt;em&gt;articulate&lt;/em&gt; all the necessary knowledge, but this is a separate
issue.)  In other words, central planning could only be done by something like
Laplace's Vast and Considerable Intellect.  Markets, in this view, by
coordinating individual actions, effectively calculate the solution (or a
solution) without requiring centralization, exploiting computational
parallelism and modularity.

&lt;P&gt;But &lt;em&gt;how many&lt;/em&gt; markets?  To guarantee equilibrium, at least in the
Arrow-Debreu framework, you need a &lt;em&gt;complete set&lt;/em&gt; of contingent-contract
markets.  Economic actors, then, have to keep track of an extraordinarily large
number of prices, and participate in an extraordinarily large number of
markets.  Now, it's no surprise that the neo-classical economic agent faces a
computationally intractable problem (at least, it's not surprising to those of
us brought up on &lt;a href=&quot;simon.html&quot;&gt;Herbert Simon&lt;/a&gt;'s writings), but what
strikes me about this is that market participation is &lt;em&gt;costly.&lt;/em&gt;  Rather
than have one agent, faced with an insoluble knowledge problem, we may have
a huge number of agents, faced with unbearable transaction costs.

&lt;P&gt;To put it a bit more formally, I wonder whether we can't establish, in some
suitable class of models, a well-defined trade-off between knowledge
centralization and the completeness of the system of markets, and hence between
the difficulty of the central authority's allocation problem and the magnitude
of the transaction costs paid by decentralized participants.  It would be
important, I imagine, to hold fixed the degree of optimization we're assuming
the different institutional systems provide --- e.g., it could well be that
an incomplete market system does better than an under-informed central
planner.

&lt;P&gt;Writing this out, I wonder if I haven't just reformulated Williamson's
theory of &lt;a href=&quot;institutions.html&quot;&gt;institutional economics&lt;/a&gt;.

&lt;ul&gt;To read:
	&lt;li&gt;Pieter Buzing , Adriaan ter Mors , Jeroen Valk and Cees Witteveen,
&quot;Coordinating Self-interested Planning
Agents&quot;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-005-6104-4&quot;&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Autonomous
Agents and Multi-Agent Systems&lt;/cite&gt; &lt;strong&gt;12&lt;/strong&gt; (2006): 199--218&lt;/a&gt;
[&quot;We consider planning problems where a number of non-cooperative agents have
to work on a joint problem. Such problems consist in completing a set of
interdependent, hierarchically ordered tasks. Each agent is assigned a subset
of tasks to perform for which it has to construct a plan. Since the agents are
non-cooperative, they insist on planning independently and do not want to
revise their individual plans when the joint plan has to be assembled from the
individual plans. We present a general formal framework to study some
computational aspects of this non-cooperative coordination problem and we
establish some complexity results to identify some of the factors that
contribute to the complexity of this problem.&quot;]
	&lt;li&gt;Jerry R. Green and Jean-Jacques Laffont, &quot;Alternative limited
communication systems: centralization versus interchange of information&quot;,
pp. 255--270 of &lt;cite&gt;Uncertainty, Information, and Communication: Essays in
Honor of Kenneth J. Arrow, vol. III&lt;/cite&gt;, ed. Walter P. Heller, Ross M. Starr
and David A. Starrett (Cambridge U.P., 1986) [Thus &lt;cite&gt;Mathematical
Reviews&lt;/cite&gt; (MR0927576): &quot; The authors study organizational structure by
means of team theory, using an example of a two-person organization which can
be either centralized or decentralized, according as information exchange is
asymmetrical or not. They find the centralized structure is better if one
player has much better information and poor coordination is expensive.&quot;]
	&lt;li&gt;Sarit Kraus, &lt;cite&gt;Strategic Negotiation in Multiagent
Environments&lt;/cite&gt; [&lt;a href=&quot;http://mitpress.mit.edu/0-262-11264-7&quot;&gt;Blurb&lt;/a&gt;]
	&lt;/ul&gt;
</description>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>