0
$\begingroup$

I am studying a model that relates incentives (money) and a set of actions.

Let $f(x) = k\frac{x^2}{2}$ be the disutility function of the agent, where $x$ is the level of effort that the agent is exerting and $k$ is set exogenously. I found that if $k > \theta$, $\theta$ is also set exogenously, then the incentive plays an insignificant role at determining the set of actions.

How should I interpret that?

My own interpretation is that the agent has low intention to exert a high level of efforts that even being compensated, they would not exert the necessary level of actions.

Am I right? How can microeconomics interpret the coefficient $k$? I understand that it is the marginal disutility, but it does not sound very practical. Can anyone please give me some reading/intuition behind the disutility function?

Updated: I am thinking of using the work: disutility tolerance but I cannot find any literature on the term.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ 1) What $\theta$ represents? More context is needed. 2) Why do you think that "it does not sound very practical"? $\endgroup$
    – Alecos Papadopoulos
    Jul 19, 2015 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ Also $f'(x) = kx$ so $k$ is not marginal disutility (instead, $f''(x) = k$). $\endgroup$
    – Alecos Papadopoulos
    Jul 19, 2015 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ What I mean by "practical" is that it really does not give me a plain intuition that I can explain to a person without intermediate knowledge of microeconomics. Even I did make a mistake in interpreting $k$ as the marginal disutility. My microeconomics course book does not cover this much so if you are aware of some good sources of reading, please let me know. Thank you! $\endgroup$
    – Khan
    Jul 19, 2015 at 13:09
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, yes. Thank for pointing out that. θ in my study is $\frac{1}{rσ^2}$ where r and $\sigma^2$ are mean and variance of idiosyncratic risk of the agent. The context is if k is high (enough to be higher than θ, the incentives play no role. How would I interpret that? $\endgroup$
    – Khan
    Jul 19, 2015 at 13:33
  • $\begingroup$ Is this a sub-component of a larger model where other goods provide utility and dis-utility? Is risk involved? Because the canonical statement about utility functions comes from Varian (1992), "The only relevant feature of a utility function is its ordinal character", and in a problem with a single good and without risk the magnitude of k has no ordinal consequences on preferences. $\endgroup$
    – BKay
    Jul 20, 2015 at 19:15

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.