# zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Social interactions and spillovers. (English) Zbl 1229.91248
This paper analyzes a model where agents choose socialization and production efforts simultaneously. The two main ingredients of the model are as follows. First, the model has local complementarities in productive investment. More precisely, spillovers are generated by paired agents and are multiplicative in own’s and other’s productive effort. There are two different sources of heterogeneity. On the one hand, agents can differ in their marginal returns to own productive effort. On the other hand, for identical levels of productive efforts, spillovers can vary with the strength of the synergistic linkage across different pairs of agents.
Second, it is assumed that agents devote an amount of resources to building synergies with others. The resulting collection of socialization efforts determines the meeting possibilities across pairs of agents and results in a pattern of bilateral interactions. Therefore, socializing is not equivalent to elaborating a nominal list of intended relationships, as in the literature on network formation.
The authors characterize the equilibria of the induced game. They first show that there is one (partial) corner equilibrium where agents do not invest at all in building synergies (Lemma 2). Next, they show that there are two interior equilibria as long as 1) there is a sufficiently large number of agents, and 2) the level of cross synergies as well as the heterogeneity in individual traits are not too large (Theorem 1). When there is a sufficiently large number of agents, the (partial) corner equilibrium is unstable, whereas the two interior equilibria are stable (Proposition 1).
When the number of agents tends to infinity, the two interior equilibria can be approximated by solving a rather simple system of equations. Its two solutions are hence approximate equilibria that are convenient for analyzing the two types of equilibria. Proposition 2 shows that the (approximate) equilibrium actions are ranked component-wisely and the equilibrium payoffs are Pareto-ranked accordingly. The socially efficient outcome lies in between the two equilibria. Thus, there is a too-high and a too-low equilibrium.
Next, the authors carry out a comparative statics analysis. They consider a compound index that is the product of a parameter indicating the synergistic returns and a quotient that measures the population heterogeneity in private returns to productive investment. In Proposition 3 it is shown that if the compound index increases then in both approximate equilibria, the percentage change in socialization effort is higher than that of productive investment for all agents (both increase at the too-low equilibrium and both decrease at the too-high equilibrium).
The authors interpret their results in terms of education where a parent (agent) exerts two types of costly effort: productive effort with the child and socialization effort related to education (e.g., parental meetings). They find that: (i) High-educated parents exert more productive effort educating their children than low-educated parents. (ii) High-educated parents are more prone to socialize with other parents than low-educated parents. (iii) In different locales, children whose parents have similar characteristics or are similarly talented as other children can end up having different educational outcomes or different levels of parental educational efforts. (iv) Different levels of parental education affect proportionally more the socialization effort of those parents than their direct effort with children.
Finally, in Section 6, the authors demonstrate that the analysis is robust to some specifications that generalize the model.

##### MSC:
 91B69 Heterogeneous agent models 91D30 Social networks; opinion dynamics 91B15 Welfare economics 91A80 Applications of game theory
##### Keywords:
peer effects; network formation; welfare
Full Text:
##### References:
 [1] Ballester, Coralio, Calvó-Armengol, Antoni, forthcoming. Interactions with hidden complementarities. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ., doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2010.04.003. [2] Ballester, Coralio; Calvó-Armengol, Antoni; Zenou, Yves, Whoʼs who in networks? wanted: the key player, Econometrica, 74, 1403-1417, (2006) · Zbl 1138.91590 [3] Becker, Gary, A theory of social interactions, J. polit. economy, 82, 1063-1093, (1974) [4] Bisin, Alberto; Verdier, Thierry, Beyond the melting pot: cultural transmission, marriage, and the evolution of ethnic and religious traits, Quart. J. econ., 115, 955-988, (2000) [5] Bloch, Francis; Dutta, Bhaskar, Communication networks with endogenous link strength, Games econ. behav., 66, 39-56, (2009) · Zbl 1161.91477 [6] Bramoullé, Yann; Kranton, Rachel, Public goods in networks, J. econ. theory, 135, 478-494, (2007) · Zbl 1186.91099 [7] Bramoullé, Yann, Kranton, Rachel, DʼAmours, Martin, 2009. Strategic interaction and networks. Duke University. Unpublished manuscript. [8] Calvó-Armengol, Antoni; Ilkiliç, Rahmi, Pairwise stability and Nash equilibria in network formation, Int. J. game theory, 38, 51-79, (2009) · Zbl 1211.91080 [9] Coleman, James S., Foundations of social theory, (1990), Harvard Univ. Press Cambridge [10] Corchón, Luis C.; Mas-Colell, Andreu, On the stability of best reply and gradient systems with applications to imperfectly competitive models, Econ. letters, 51, 59-65, (1996) · Zbl 0875.90004 [11] Debreu, Gérard; Herstein, Israel Nathan, Nonnegative square matrices, Econometrica, 21, 4, 597-607, (1953) · Zbl 0051.00901 [12] Dee, Thomas S., Are there civic returns to education?, J. public econ., 88, 1197-1720, (2004) [13] Durlauf, Steven N., On the empirics of social capital, Econ. J., 112, F459-F479, (2002) [14] Galeotti, A. Merlino, L., 2009. Endogenous job contact networks. University of Essex. Unpublished manuscript. · Zbl 1404.91168 [15] Glaeser, Edward L.; Sacerdote, Bruce; Scheinkman, José A., Crime and social interactions, Quart. J. econ., 111, 507-548, (1996) [16] Golub, B., Livne, Y., 2010. Strategic random networks. Why social networking technology matters. Stanford University. Unpublished manuscript. [17] Goyal, Sanjeev, Connections: an introduction to the economics of networks, (2007), Princeton Univ. Press Princeton · Zbl 1138.91005 [18] Helliwell, John F.; Putnam, Robert D., Education and social capital, Eastern econ. J., 33, 1-19, (2007) [19] Ioannides, Yannis M.; Soetevent, Adriaan R., Social networking and individual outcomes beyond the Mean field case, J. econ. behav. organ., 64, 369-390, (2007) [20] Jackson, Matthew O., Social and economic networks, (2008), Princeton Univ. Press Princeton · Zbl 1149.91051 [21] Jackson, Matthew O.; Wolinsky, Asher, A strategic model of social and economic networks, J. econ. theory, 71, 44-74, (1996) · Zbl 0871.90144 [22] Milligan, Kevin; Moretti, Enrico; Oreopoulos, Philip, Does education improve citizenship? evidence from the united states and the united kingdom, J. public econ., 88, 1167-1196, (2004) [23] Patacchini, Eleonora, Zenou, Yves, 2010. Intergenerational education transmission: neighborhood quality and/or parentsʼ involvement? Stockholm University. Unpublished manuscript. · Zbl 1396.91605 [24] Putnam, Robert D., Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital in America, Amer. prospect, 24, 664-683, (1995) [25] Putnam, Robert D., Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community, (2000), Simon and Schuster New York [26] Scheinkman, José A., Social interactions, () · Zbl 1141.91343 [27] Sobel, Joel, Can we trust social capital?, J. econ. lit., 40, 139-154, (2002) [28] Vega-Redondo, Fernando, Complex social networks, Econometric society monograph series, (2007), Cambridge Univ. Press Cambridge · Zbl 1145.91004
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.