Consider a situation where there are two firms with different marginal abatement cost. However, the regulator does not know who is a high or low abatement cost firm (but the firms DO know their costs). The regulator wants to set a separate standard for each and use a subsidy payment to encourage truthful compliance with the correct standard on the part of the two firms involved. This situation is illustrated in the figure below.

What must be true about X, Y and Z in order for the subsidy, R = $2.5M, to work?

Question

Consider a situation where there are two firms with different marginal abatement cost. However, the regulator does not know who is a high or low abatement cost firm (but the firms DO know their costs). The regulator wants to set a separate standard for each and use a subsidy payment to encourage truthful compliance with the correct standard on the part of the two firms involved. This situation is illustrated in the figure below.

What must be true about X, Y and Z in order for the subsidy, R = $2.5M, to work?

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

First, I will restate the question and enumerate the options to ensure clarity.
Question: There are two firms with different marginal abatement costs. The regulator cannot observe which firm has high or low costs, but firms know their own costs. The regulator wants to set a separate standard for each firm and use a subsidy R = $2.5M to induce truthful compliance with the correct standard. What must be true about X, Y, and Z for the subsidy to work?
Answer options:
- all of the available options work.
- X = $1M, Y = $5M, Z = $8M.
- X = $4M, Y = $1M, Z = $8M.
- X = $1M, Y = $1M, Z = $1M.

Now, I will analyze each option in turn, highlighting why each would or would not satisfy the incentive compatibility conditions implied by a subsidized compliance mechanism.
Option 1: all of the available options work.
- If every possible assignment of X, Y, Z were feasible for a working subsidy, that would suggest the mechanism is insensitive to the precise values of X, Y, Z, which is unlikely given the typical design where subsidies align costs with observed behavior through payoff congruence. In standard models, specific relationships among X, Y, Z are required to make truthful reporting and compliance optimal; claiming all options work would ignore these needed relationships, making this option suspicious.
Option 2: X = $1M, Y = $5M, Z = $8M.
- Here, the asymmetry across X, Y, Z is large. If the subsidy relies on a precise mapping from observed behavior to the correct standard, such disparate values could create incentives for misreporting or misclassification. In particular, the high Z = $8M relative to X and Y could distort marginal incentives, causing one firm to mimic the other’s cost type to capture the subsidy, undermining truthfulness. This option seems unlikely to satisfy the required incentive compatibility with R = $2.5M.
Option 3: X = $4M, Y = $1M, Z = $8M.
- Again, there is a significant spread among X, Y, Z. The large difference between the high abatement cost case (Z) and the others tends to create gaps in the payoff structure that can be exploited by misreporting. With R fixed at $2.5M, the subsidy may not align incentives appropriately for truthful compliance, making this option implausible as the sole working configuration.
Option 4: X = $1M, Y = $1M, Z = $1M.
- This option assigns equal values to X, Y, and Z. Such symmetry often stabilizes incentive-compatibility conditions in subsidy designs, ensuring that no firm has a two-way incentive to misreport because the marginal benefits and costs are balanced across the possible types. With R = $2.5M, a uniform assignment can be calibrated to make truthful compliance the best response for both firms, satisfying the standard mechanism design intuition in this context.

Synthesis: The two non-trivial differences between options lie in how the X, Y, Z values align with the required incentive compatibility under a fixed subsidy. Options with highly uneven X, Y, Z (Options 2 and 3) tend to disrupt the alignment of private costs with observable outcomes, increasing opportunities for strategic misreporting or non-compliance. Option 1 (all options work) ignores the structural requirements of the mechanism and is therefore unlikely to be correct. Option 4 (X = Y = Z = 1M) presents a balanced, symmetric configuration that typically ensures the subsidy properly induces truthful compliance for both firms when R is set at the given level. Given this reasoning, the configuration that satisfies the incentive compatibility with the specified subsidy is X = $1M, Y = $1M, Z = $1M.

ECON4330850.1251 Exam 2

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

When firms in a polluting industry have different costs for the technology to reduce pollution, which of the following is efficient?

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler