106
M. Tirelli
It will be clearer as we go along in the paper that our main results hold for
any criterion, β , which is expressed as a functional of consumers’ present
value vectors, λ. For reasons of analytic tractability, we stick with the adop-
tion of a specific criterion, and choose the following modified Grossman-
Hart criterion.6
Definition 2 (ModifiedGrossman-Hartcriterion). Forevery (θj, λ,tj) and
all s ∈ S ∪ {0}, βj = ∑hj (1 + ts1) is the pricing criterion of firm
j ∈ J2.
2.2. The equilibrium with taxes
Gathering the definitions of agents’ actions and markets we obtain a full
description of our economy, E(u, f, η, e, θ, R). We provide the following
definition of equilibrium at the policy instrument vector tI in T I .
Let ω = (η, e, θ, u, f), and let E be the set of economies with typical
element (ω, R).
Definition 3 (E - tI equilibrium). In an economy (ω, R) in E, an equilib-
rium with tax instruments tI ∈ T I, and firm pricing criteria β, is a pair
((x, θ, y), (q, t)) such that:
(i) ∀h, xh,θh isan individual optimum for consumer h, at (q, y, ω, t, R);
(ii) ∀j, yj is an individual optimum for firm j, at βj;
(iii) ∀ j ∈ Jl, Eh θjh = 0; ∀j ∈ J2, Σh θjh = 1 ;
(iv) t satisfies fiscal budget balance at tI.
Observe that, if (i)-(iv) are satisfied, spot markets clear. Moreover, (iv)
can be written differently depending on the type of fiscal policy assumed.
For the equilibrium to be well defined every β j must be chosen in the
set of consistent criteria (see Section 2.1.5). Finally, we define a no-tax
equilibrium, an E - tI equilibrium setting all tax instruments tI equal to
zero. Observe that our notion of no-tax equilibrium is the one-commodity
analogue of the equilibrium notion in Geanakoplos et al. (1990), when firms’
pricing criteria, β, are defined as in Dreze (1987); it is the one-commodity
dyj such that yj + dyj is optimal for j and (1, Vuh ) ∙ ∂χj-dyj ≥ 0 for all shareholders h,
with strict inequality for some h. Further, we say that βj is shareholder constrained efficient
for j if, at equilibrium, it supports a decision profile yj that is shareholder constrained
efficient for j. Assume that lump-sum redistribution is possible at date zero. Then, βj is
shareholder constrained efficient if and only if ∑ h (1, V uh ) ∙ ( ∂xh∕∂yj ) dyj ≤ Oforevery
dyj such that V fj ∙ dyj = O.
6 This criterion can be shown to be shareholder constrained efficient if: (1) lump-sum
transfers among shareholders are allowed, and (2) shareholders have competitive price per-
ceptions (see the previous footnote).