如果你也在 怎样代写微观经济学Microeconomics这个学科遇到相关的难题，请随时右上角联系我们的24/7代写客服。
微观经济学是主流经济学的一个分支，研究个人和企业在做出有关稀缺资源分配的决策时的行为以及这些个人和企业之间的相互作用。
statistics-lab™ 为您的留学生涯保驾护航 在代写微观经济学Microeconomics方面已经树立了自己的口碑, 保证靠谱, 高质且原创的统计Statistics代写服务。我们的专家在代写微观经济学Microeconomics代写方面经验极为丰富，各种代写微观经济学Microeconomics相关的作业也就用不着说。
我们提供的微观经济学Microeconomics及其相关学科的代写，服务范围广, 其中包括但不限于:
- Statistical Inference 统计推断
- Statistical Computing 统计计算
- Advanced Probability Theory 高等概率论
- Advanced Mathematical Statistics 高等数理统计学
- (Generalized) Linear Models 广义线性模型
- Statistical Machine Learning 统计机器学习
- Longitudinal Data Analysis 纵向数据分析
- Foundations of Data Science 数据科学基础
经济代写|微观经济学代写Microeconomics代考|The Bigger Picture
It is now time to use these examples to develop a more comprehensive view on institutions and transaction costs. The idea that something may be missing in standard theory, which helps explain institutions, goes back to a paper by Ronald Coase that he wrote as early as Coase (1937). Standard theory models firms simply as technological phenomena transforming inputs into outputs, and makes a behavioral assumption that they seek to maximize profits. This “black-box approach” to the firm had the advantage of simplicity and it allowed for generating a lot of deep insights into the functioning of markets, some of which the last chapter covered. However, the standard approach turned out to be ill-suited to answering the question of why firms exist in the first place, given the apparent efficiency of markets. Ronald Coase’s major insight was that transaction costs are at the heart of the problem of optimal institutional design. Unfortunately, transaction costs are a vexed concept, because they turned out to be very difficult to define in a precise and useful way.
Much effort has been devoted to understand the exact conditions under which the invisible hand can leverage self-interest into social welfare and the most useful insight, for this purpose, goes back to another paper by Ronald Coase (1960). If society is interested in promoting efficiency, then every institution that is compatible with this goal must share the same structure: it has to make sure that individuals fully internalize the effects of their behavior on others.
As suggested above, internalization of interdependencies can be achieved by a complete set of competitive markets. The completeness of the markets implies the absence of an important category of market-related transaction costs. The term “transaction costs” is closely related to institutions, since transaction costs can be used to assess the relative “imperfectness” of different institutions (see Definition 6.2). This understanding allows it to put the First Theorem of Welfare Economics into perspective. It was clear from the work of theorists of socialist planning like Oskar Lange $(1936 ; 1937)$ that, under the conditions of the First Theorem of Welfare Economics, a central planning mechanism is efficient as well. In order to find the equilibrium price, “the market” needs information that, in the hands of a central planner, would be sufficient to implement the efficient allocation directly without the detour of market transactions. This implies that, under ideal circumstances, the institutional structure does not matter for the efficiency of the resulting allocation.
Coase (1960) generalized this idea by creating the awareness that it is neither the complete set of markets nor the idealized planner mechanism that is responsible for the result, but two other, implicit assumptions, namely the rationality of economic actors and the absence of transaction costs.
经济代写|微观经济学代写Microeconomics代考|Externalities in Traffic
A society sufficiently sophisticated to produce the internal combustion engine has not had the sophistication to develop cheap and efficient public transport?
Yes, boss … it’s true. There’s hardly any buses, the trains are hopelessly underfunded, and hence the entire population is stuck in traffic. (Ben Elton, 1991, Gridlock)
The most common feeling of car drivers who are locked in a traffic jam is anger, but these psychological costs are only the tip of the iceberg regarding economic costs caused by crowded streets and overburdened infrastructure. The main causes of traffic jams are accidents, poor infrastructure, peak-hour traffic, and variable traffic speeds on congested roads. The Centre for Economics and Business Research and INRIX (a company providing Internet services pertaining to road traffic) has estimated the impact of such delays on the British, French, German, and American economies. Here are some of the main findings (US data):
- The costs of congestion summed up to $\$ 124$ billion in 2013 . This cost is (ceteris paribus) expected to increase $50 \%$ to $\$ 186$ billion by 2030 . The cumulative cost over the 17-year period is projected to be $\$ 2.8$ trillion.
- The annual cost of traffic for each American household is $\$ 1700$ today. This cost is expected to rise to $\$ 2300$ in 2030 , with huge regional variations (the cost is $\$ 6000$ in the Los Angeles area). To put these numbers into perspective, the median household income was $\$ 51,939$ in 2013 .
- The monetary value of carbon emissions caused by congestion was $\$ 300$ million in 2013 . By 2030 , this is expected to rise to $\$ 538$ million, totaling $\$ 7.6$ billion over the 17 -year period.
Congestion costs of traffic can legitimately count as an externality, because the main causes of these costs are (a) opportunity costs of time, (b) costs of carbon and other emissions, and (c) price effects of higher transportation costs. In order to understand this conjecture, it makes sense to look at a car driver’s decision problem. When deciding if, when or where to use streets, she takes individual costs and benefits into consideration. However, the lion’s share of costs and benefits spills over onto other traffic participants and the general public. Emissions cause either regional or global effects, which are not included in the individual’s decision problem, and other drivers’ wasted time is also neglected. The reason is that decentralized negotiations about when and where to use the streets would lead to prohibitive transaction costs.
What else can one do to make traffic more efficient? What are the institutional alternatives? Solving congestion is not easy. Building more roads, or widening existing ones, can encourage people to drive even more. Charging road users for travelling at busy periods can help to solve the efficiency problem, but it may cause other problems. To highlight them, one can focus on the London Congestion Charge. The standard charge in 2016 was $£ 11.50$ on most motor vehicles operating within the Congestion Charge Zone (Central London) between 07:00 a.m. and 08:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. In theory, the charge should be set such that the individual driver pays a price that is equal to the costs caused by his decision to use a specific network of streets during a given time period. Hence, if the charge is calculated correctly, one can infer that the externality caused by a single driver is approximately $£ 11.50$. If the price of going to central London goes up, demand should go down and one gets the desired increase in efficiency, because congestion is reduced. What makes this instrument problematic is that it has distributional consequences, because the fee is especially burdensome for the relatively poor, who are disproportionately deterred from coming to the city center by car.
经济代写|微观经济学代写Microeconomics代考|Environmental Externalities
There is a broad consensus among scientists that the rate of species loss is greater now than at any time in human history. In 2007, the German Federal Environment Minister acknowledged that up to $30 \%$ of all species would be extinct by 2010 . The Living Planet Report (World Wildlife Fund, 2014) comes to the conclusion that “the number of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish across the globe is, on average, about half the size it was 40 years ago.” If one follows the scientific consensus and assumes that part of the loss in biodiversity is a consequence of the economic system, the question is whether this loss is a result of externalities. Is it possible that mass extinction of species can be Pareto-efficient? This is a tough question, because it requires information about the role of biodiversity in supporting human life on this planet and it relies on assumption about the way humans value biodiversity per se. If one starts with the conservative assumption that biodiversity has only instrumental value in supporting human life and if one admits that intergenerational externalities exist, because current generations do not adequately take the interests of future ones into consideration, then one can make a case for the existence of an externality. This is if one assumes that a more diverse biosphere is more likely to support human life than an impoverished one. This latter conjecture, however, is built on deep uncertainty of the complex role of the biosphere in supporting human life. The deeper problem is that the concept of Pareto efficiency, as seen before, is blind with respect to the distribution of gains from trade, and, more generally, economic welfare. A policy where the present generation has a big “party” and uses up most of the natural resources, leaving a devastated planet where future generations scrap along at the subsistence level, is Pareto-efficient as long as there is no alternative policy to make future generations better off without harming the present ones.
The concept of Pareto efficiency has a lot of shortcomings when it comes to long-term problems, which is why is has been supplemented, and even replaced, by the concept of sustainability in the normative social and natural sciences and in politics. The most popular definition of the concept of sustainable development goes back to the so-called Brundtland Commission of the United Nations (1987): “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This concept implicitly acknowledges the right of future generations to live a decent life and is, therefore, stronger than the Pareto criterion. However, it still suffers from
the need to understand the complex role of ecosystems and it is anthropocentric in nature. I will come back to this latter point at the end of this subchapter.Returning to a less complex externality, the example of an oil spill illustrates the basic problems and solutions. Assume that a company operates a fleet of oil tankers, which move large quantities of crude oil from its point of extraction to the refineries. The environmental risk of this business model is that oil spills, due to accidents, affect the (marine) environment and may also affect the fishing industry. One can divide the discussion into two parts. Part one assumes that it is possible to attach a meaningful monetary value to the damage caused by oil spills and to ask for institutional arrangements that lead to efficient outcomes. Part two scrutinizes this assumption and takes a closer look at the normative issues that are involved when attaching price tags to oil spills.
微观经济学代考
经济代写|微观经济学代写Microeconomics代考|The Bigger Picture
现在是时候使用这些例子来更全面地了解制度和交易成本了。有助于解释制度的标准理论中可能缺少某些东西的想法可以追溯到罗纳德科斯早在科斯（1937 年）时写的一篇论文。标准理论将公司简单地建模为将投入转化为产出的技术现象，并做出他们寻求利润最大化的行为假设。这种对公司的“黑盒方法”具有简单的优势，它可以对市场的运作产生很多深刻的见解，其中一些在最后一章中已经介绍过。然而，考虑到市场的明显效率，标准方法被证明不适合回答公司为什么存在的问题。罗纳德·科斯的主要见解是交易成本是最优制度设计问题的核心。不幸的是，交易成本是一个令人烦恼的概念，因为事实证明它们很难以精确和有用的方式定义。
已经付出了很多努力来了解看不见的手可以将自身利益用于社会福利的确切条件，为此目的，最有用的见解可以追溯到 Ronald Coase (1960) 的另一篇论文。如果社会对提高效率感兴趣，那么与此目标兼容的每个机构都必须具有相同的结构：它必须确保个人将其行为对其他人的影响完全内化。
如上所述，相互依赖的内部化可以通过一套完整的竞争市场来实现。市场的完整性意味着不存在与市场相关的重要交易成本类别。“交易成本”一词与制度密切相关，因为交易成本可用于评估不同制度的相对“不完善性”（见定义 6.2）。这种理解使其能够正确看待福利经济学第一定理。从奥斯卡兰格等社会主义计划理论家的工作中可以清楚地看到(1936;1937)也就是说，在福利经济学第一定理的条件下，中央计划机制也是有效的。为了找到均衡价格，“市场”需要这样的信息，在中央计划者手中，这些信息足以直接实施有效分配，而不会绕行市场交易。这意味着，在理想情况下，制度结构与最终分配的效率无关。
科斯 (1960) 通过建立这样一种意识来概括这一想法，即对结果负责的既不是完整的市场集，也不是理想化的计划机制，而是另外两个隐含的假设，即经济行为者的理性和不存在交易费用。
经济代写|微观经济学代写Microeconomics代考|Externalities in Traffic
一个足够成熟到可以生产内燃机的社会还没有成熟到发展廉价和高效的公共交通？
是的，老板……这是真的。几乎没有公共汽车，火车资金不足，因此整个人口都陷入了交通困境。(Ben Elton, 1991, Gridlock)
堵车的汽车司机最常见的感觉是愤怒，但这些心理成本只是街道拥挤和基础设施负担过重造成的经济成本的冰山一角。交通拥堵的主要原因是事故、基础设施薄弱、高峰时段交通以及拥堵道路上的可变交通速度。经济与商业研究中心和 INRIX（一家提供与道路交通有关的互联网服务的公司）估计了此类延误对英国、法国、德国和美国经济的影响。以下是一些主要发现（美国数据）：
- 拥堵成本总计为$1242013 年 10 亿。该成本（在其他条件不变的情况下）预计会增加50%至$186到 2030 年 10 亿。预计 17 年期间的累计成本为$2.8兆。
- 每个美国家庭每年的交通成本是$1700今天。预计该成本将上升至$23002030 年，地区差异巨大（成本为$6000在洛杉矶地区）。从这些数字来看，家庭收入中位数是$51,9392013 年。
- 拥堵造成的碳排放的货币价值为$3002013 年百万。到 2030 年，预计这一数字将上升到$538万，总计$7.6在 17 年期间达到 10 亿美元。
交通拥堵成本可以合理地算作外部性，因为这些成本的主要原因是（a）时间的机会成本，（b）碳和其他排放的成本，以及（c）更高的运输成本的价格效应。为了理解这个猜想，看一下汽车驾驶员的决策问题是有意义的。在决定是否、何时或何地使用街道时，她会考虑个人成本和收益。然而，大部分成本和收益会溢出到其他交通参与者和公众身上。排放造成区域或全球影响，不包括在个人的决策问题中，其他司机浪费的时间也被忽略了。原因是关于何时何地使用街道的去中心化谈判会导致交易成本过高。
还可以做些什么来提高交通效率？有哪些制度选择？解决拥堵并不容易。修建更多的道路，或拓宽现有的道路，可以鼓励人们更多地开车。在繁忙时段向道路使用者收费可以帮助解决效率问题，但可能会导致其他问题。为了突出它们，可以关注伦敦拥堵费。2016年的标准收费是££11.50周一至周五上午 7:00 至晚上 8:00 期间在拥堵收费区（伦敦市中心）内运营的大多数机动车辆。理论上，收费应该这样设定，即单个司机支付的价格等于他决定在给定时间段内使用特定街道网络所造成的成本。因此，如果收费计算正确，可以推断出单个司机造成的外部性大约为££11.50. 如果去伦敦市中心的价格上涨，需求应该会下降，并且人们会获得期望的效率提高，因为拥堵减少了。使该工具存在问题的原因在于它具有分配后果，因为对于相对贫困的人来说，费用尤其沉重，他们被不成比例地阻止开车来市中心。
经济代写|微观经济学代写Microeconomics代考|Environmental Externalities
科学家们普遍认为，现在物种丧失的速度比人类历史上任何时候都要大。2007 年，德国联邦环境部长承认，截至30%到 2010 年，所有物种将灭绝。地球生命力报告（世界野生动物基金会，2014 年）得出的结论是“全球哺乳动物、鸟类、爬行动物、两栖动物和鱼类的数量平均约为 40 年前的一半。” 如果人们遵循科学共识并假设生物多样性的部分丧失是经济系统的结果，那么问题是这种丧失是否是外部性的结果。物种的大规模灭绝是否有可能是帕累托有效的？这是一个棘手的问题，因为它需要有关生物多样性在支持地球上人类生活方面的作用的信息，并且它依赖于关于人类重视生物多样性本身的方式的假设。如果人们从保守的假设开始，即生物多样性在支持人类生活方面仅具有工具价值，并且如果人们承认存在代际外部性，因为当代人没有充分考虑未来人的利益，那么人们可以为存在的理由的外部性。这是如果人们假设一个更多样化的生物圈比一个贫困的生物圈更有可能支持人类生活。然而，后一种猜想是建立在生物圈在支持人类生命方面的复杂作用的深刻不确定性之上的。更深层次的问题是，如前所述，帕累托效率的概念对于贸易收益的分配以及更普遍的经济福利是盲目的。
帕累托效率的概念在涉及长期问题时存在很多不足，这就是为什么在规范的社会科学和自然科学以及政治中被可持续性概念补充甚至取代的原因。可持续发展概念最流行的定义可以追溯到所谓的联合国布伦特兰委员会（1987 年）：“可持续发展是在不损害后代满足其自身需求的能力的情况下满足当前需求的发展。需要。” 这一概念含蓄地承认后代有权过上体面的生活，因此比帕累托标准更强。然而，它仍然遭受着
需要了解生态系统的复杂作用，它本质上是以人类为中心的。我将在本小节的末尾回到后一点。回到不太复杂的外部性，漏油的例子说明了基本问题和解决方案。假设一家公司经营着一支油轮船队，将大量原油从其提取点运送到炼油厂。这种商业模式的环境风险是，由于事故，石油泄漏会影响（海洋）环境，也可能影响渔业。可以将讨论分为两部分。第一部分假设可以为石油泄漏造成的损害赋予有意义的货币价值，并要求制定能够产生有效结果的制度安排。
统计代写请认准statistics-lab™. statistics-lab™为您的留学生涯保驾护航。
金融工程代写
金融工程是使用数学技术来解决金融问题。金融工程使用计算机科学、统计学、经济学和应用数学领域的工具和知识来解决当前的金融问题，以及设计新的和创新的金融产品。
非参数统计代写
非参数统计指的是一种统计方法，其中不假设数据来自于由少数参数决定的规定模型；这种模型的例子包括正态分布模型和线性回归模型。
广义线性模型代考
广义线性模型（GLM）归属统计学领域，是一种应用灵活的线性回归模型。该模型允许因变量的偏差分布有除了正态分布之外的其它分布。
术语 广义线性模型（GLM）通常是指给定连续和/或分类预测因素的连续响应变量的常规线性回归模型。它包括多元线性回归，以及方差分析和方差分析（仅含固定效应）。
有限元方法代写
有限元方法（FEM）是一种流行的方法，用于数值解决工程和数学建模中出现的微分方程。典型的问题领域包括结构分析、传热、流体流动、质量运输和电磁势等传统领域。
有限元是一种通用的数值方法，用于解决两个或三个空间变量的偏微分方程（即一些边界值问题）。为了解决一个问题，有限元将一个大系统细分为更小、更简单的部分，称为有限元。这是通过在空间维度上的特定空间离散化来实现的，它是通过构建对象的网格来实现的：用于求解的数值域，它有有限数量的点。边界值问题的有限元方法表述最终导致一个代数方程组。该方法在域上对未知函数进行逼近。[1] 然后将模拟这些有限元的简单方程组合成一个更大的方程系统，以模拟整个问题。然后，有限元通过变化微积分使相关的误差函数最小化来逼近一个解决方案。
tatistics-lab作为专业的留学生服务机构，多年来已为美国、英国、加拿大、澳洲等留学热门地的学生提供专业的学术服务，包括但不限于Essay代写，Assignment代写，Dissertation代写，Report代写，小组作业代写，Proposal代写，Paper代写，Presentation代写，计算机作业代写，论文修改和润色，网课代做，exam代考等等。写作范围涵盖高中，本科，研究生等海外留学全阶段，辐射金融，经济学，会计学，审计学，管理学等全球99%专业科目。写作团队既有专业英语母语作者，也有海外名校硕博留学生，每位写作老师都拥有过硬的语言能力，专业的学科背景和学术写作经验。我们承诺100%原创，100%专业，100%准时，100%满意。
随机分析代写
随机微积分是数学的一个分支，对随机过程进行操作。它允许为随机过程的积分定义一个关于随机过程的一致的积分理论。这个领域是由日本数学家伊藤清在第二次世界大战期间创建并开始的。
时间序列分析代写
随机过程，是依赖于参数的一组随机变量的全体，参数通常是时间。 随机变量是随机现象的数量表现，其时间序列是一组按照时间发生先后顺序进行排列的数据点序列。通常一组时间序列的时间间隔为一恒定值（如1秒，5分钟，12小时，7天，1年），因此时间序列可以作为离散时间数据进行分析处理。研究时间序列数据的意义在于现实中，往往需要研究某个事物其随时间发展变化的规律。这就需要通过研究该事物过去发展的历史记录，以得到其自身发展的规律。
回归分析代写
多元回归分析渐进（Multiple Regression Analysis Asymptotics）属于计量经济学领域，主要是一种数学上的统计分析方法，可以分析复杂情况下各影响因素的数学关系，在自然科学、社会和经济学等多个领域内应用广泛。
MATLAB代写
MATLAB 是一种用于技术计算的高性能语言。它将计算、可视化和编程集成在一个易于使用的环境中，其中问题和解决方案以熟悉的数学符号表示。典型用途包括：数学和计算算法开发建模、仿真和原型制作数据分析、探索和可视化科学和工程图形应用程序开发，包括图形用户界面构建MATLAB 是一个交互式系统，其基本数据元素是一个不需要维度的数组。这使您可以解决许多技术计算问题，尤其是那些具有矩阵和向量公式的问题，而只需用 C 或 Fortran 等标量非交互式语言编写程序所需的时间的一小部分。MATLAB 名称代表矩阵实验室。MATLAB 最初的编写目的是提供对由 LINPACK 和 EISPACK 项目开发的矩阵软件的轻松访问，这两个项目共同代表了矩阵计算软件的最新技术。MATLAB 经过多年的发展，得到了许多用户的投入。在大学环境中，它是数学、工程和科学入门和高级课程的标准教学工具。在工业领域，MATLAB 是高效研究、开发和分析的首选工具。MATLAB 具有一系列称为工具箱的特定于应用程序的解决方案。对于大多数 MATLAB 用户来说非常重要，工具箱允许您学习和应用专业技术。工具箱是 MATLAB 函数（M 文件）的综合集合，可扩展 MATLAB 环境以解决特定类别的问题。可用工具箱的领域包括信号处理、控制系统、神经网络、模糊逻辑、小波、仿真等。