Does it Take a Tyrant to Implement a Good Reform?

Anna Rubinchik-Pessach,Ruqu Wang

2005-01-01

Abstract:In our model a reform is a switch from one norm of behavior (equilibrium) to another and agents have to endure private costs of transition in case of a reform. A (local) authority, which coordinates the transition, can enforce transfers across the agents and is capable of imposing punishments upon them. A transfer/tax is limited, however, by an agent's equilibrium payoff ,a nd a punishment can not exceed an upper bound monitored by a "third party" (in- ternational community). Implementing a good (Pareto improving) reform can be hindered by asymmetric information about the costs of transition, which are privately known to the agents and can not be observed by the authority. In this case even a benevolent authority may need to credibly threaten agents with a punishment to induce both the desired behavior and the truthtelling about the costs, as otherwise some good reforms will not be implementable, even with Bayesian mechanisms. Allowing for harsher punishments in that framework reduces to 'softening' the individual rationality constraint, thus widening the range of implementable reforms. The flip-side of increasing the admissible pun- ishment is making 'bad' reforms feasible. With the international community setting a uniform standard of (negative) human rights (or maximal level of punishment) across countries, some will be unable to implement good reforms, while others will be prone to undesirable transitions. We, thus, formulate a trade-off between a successful implementation of good reforms from the utili- tarian perspective and well-being of selected individuals in the society.