Q:
A lot of times when I go out with friends someone ends up suggesting ordering a number of different dishes and sharing them. I do not like this idea (because it is messy and it dilutes the pleasure of choosing), but once the suggestion is made, it seems churlish and anti-social to object. How can I break this cycle, while retaining my friends?
Answer:
I feel the same way. Why should I be obliged to trade my delicacy with a rubber tasting chicken piece. Still, there is more to this than simply finding a polite way to object.
The basic difficulty is judging the cost of your dislike against the benefits derived by your friends in sharing. Sharing should occur if your irritation at the practice is outweighed by their delight; and should not occur otherwise. Who is to make this judgment? Also another problem here is consumer preference is not truly revealed, because some of your friends like you might not be revealing their preferences just like you.
Fortunately, the Coase theorem, developed by our own LSE Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase, predicts an optimal and mutually satisfying outcome if property rights are clearly specified. You could suggest that everyone could order their own dishes, specifying clear property rights and sharing wherever the trading is leads to a pareto optimal condition. This should ensure that splitting dishes occurs only when socially efficient, and you will not be obliged to participate, although an excellent offer of compensation may persuade you to do so.
Looking at your situation in terms of the Coase theorem, the problem is that the property rights are not clearly specified. Once this is done it will provide a solution for a community (here your friends and you) welfare maximization.
No comments:
Post a Comment