出版社: Oxford University Press, USA
出版年: 19950615
页数: 1008 pages
定价: $108.00
装帧: Hardcover
ISBN: 9780195073409
内容简介 · · · · · ·
Many instructors of microeconomic theory have been waiting for a text that provides balanced and indepth analysis of the essentials of microeconomics. Masterfully combining the results of years of teaching microeconomics at Harvard University, Andreu MasColell, Michael Whinston, and Jerry Green have filled that conspicuous vacancy with their groundbreaking text, Microeconomic...
Many instructors of microeconomic theory have been waiting for a text that provides balanced and indepth analysis of the essentials of microeconomics. Masterfully combining the results of years of teaching microeconomics at Harvard University, Andreu MasColell, Michael Whinston, and Jerry Green have filled that conspicuous vacancy with their groundbreaking text, Microeconomic Theory.
The authors set out to create a solid organizational foundation upon which to build the effective teaching tool for microeconomic theory. The result presents unprecedented depth of coverage in all the essential topics, while allowing professors to "tailormake" their course to suit personal priorities and style. Topics such as noncooperative game theory, information economics, mechanism design, and general equilibrium under uncertainty receive the attention that reflects their stature within the discipline. The authors devote an entire section to game theory alone, making it "freestanding" to allow instructors to return to it throughout the course when convenient. Discussion is clear, accessible, and engaging, enabling the student to gradually acquire confidence as well as proficiency. Extensive exercises within each chapter help students to hone their skills, while the text's appendix of terms, fully crossreferenced throughout the previous five sections, offers an accessible guide to the subject matter's terminology. Teachers of microeconomics need no longer rely upon scattered lecture notes to supplement their textbooks. Deftly written by three of the field's most influential scholars, Microeconomic Theory brings the readability, comprehensiveness, and versatility to the firstyear graduate classroom that has long been missing.
作者简介 · · · · · ·
Andreu MasColell is at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. Michael D. Whinston is at Harvard University. Jerry R. Green is at Harvard University.
喜欢读"Microeconomic Theory"的人也喜欢的电子书 · · · · · ·
喜欢读"Microeconomic Theory"的人也喜欢 · · · · · ·
Microeconomic Theory的书评 · · · · · · (全部 6 条)
MWG和其他资料搭配方法的个人意见
擦边儿过了quanlify的我想说这本儿书真的太老了
> 更多书评6篇

Dubos (Stay young, stay simple.)
"Thus, in many aspects, we are not going as deep as we did in Part III in the microanalysis of markets, of market failure, and of the strategic interdependence of market actors. The tradeoff in conceptual structure between Parts III and IV reflects, in a sense, the current state of frontier of microeconomic research."20130406 10:22
"Thus, in many aspects, we are not going as deep as we did in Part III in the microanalysis of markets, of market failure, and of the strategic interdependence of market actors. The tradeoff in conceptual structure between Parts III and IV reflects, in a sense, the current state of frontier of microeconomic research."回应 20130406 10:22 
Exact consumer's surplus and deadweight loss, Hausman(1981). 是这道题的原型。文章本身是非常有意思的。指出如何从从Marshall demand function to get indirect utility function, 剩下的故事就很简单了。通过expenditure function测量CV,EV什么的。 有意思的是，文章的 indirect utility function 是V，在MWG里面变成了V。 为什么要这样改呢？其实MWG认为这样改之后，这个 indirect utility function will become quasic... (2回应)
20121101 13:58
Exact consumer's surplus and deadweight loss, Hausman(1981). 是这道题的原型。文章本身是非常有意思的。指出如何从从Marshall demand function to get indirect utility function, 剩下的故事就很简单了。通过expenditure function测量CV,EV什么的。有意思的是，文章的 indirect utility function 是V，在MWG里面变成了V。为什么要这样改呢？其实MWG认为这样改之后，这个 indirect utility function will become quasiconvex，这是 indirect utility function要有的一个性质。但是，如果我们考虑文章的 indirect utility function，我们会发现当我们能规定V<0，那么quasiconvex，就能保证。所以，这要求我们对V里的系数有一定要求，直接在前面加个负号，并不能很好的解决这个问题。至于为什么V<0的时候， indirect utility function会quasiconvex，这需要我们用matlab验证。手算会比较麻烦。就是计算 v's bounded hessian is N.S.D. 说明 v 是quasiconcave, then v is quasiconvex.至于为什么“v's bounded hessian is N.S.D. 说明 v 是quasiconcave”，这个查一些全面的数理经济学书都会有的。在这里是3阶的matrix.2回应 20121101 13:58 
小鸥 (小和尚)
Duality in the optimization context basically means the existence of an equivalent representation of the optimization problem in linear form, coming from the connection between linearity and convexity. Basically if a person's decision behavior is more rational (convexity of consumption set), it will be more regular and predictable (convertable to linear optimization of the dual problem). A deeper ...20120302 18:00
Duality in the optimization context basically means the existence of an equivalent representation of the optimization problem in linear form, coming from the connection between linearity and convexity. Basically if a person's decision behavior is more rational (convexity of consumption set), it will be more regular and predictable (convertable to linear optimization of the dual problem). A deeper root of such a property lies in the property of binary ordering.回应 20120302 18:00 
小鸥 (小和尚)
Relationship between preference relations and choice rules is investigated in this section, but in fact, it is the rational preference relations and the consistent choice rules that is being compared. What about the question of whether every choice rule, consistent or not, can be explained by a preference relation, and whether every preference relation, rational or not, can be realized in a choice...20120223 15:40
Relationship between preference relations and choice rules is investigated in this section, but in fact, it is the rational preference relations and the consistent choice rules that is being compared. What about the question of whether every choice rule, consistent or not, can be explained by a preference relation, and whether every preference relation, rational or not, can be realized in a choice rule? The second question obviously has an answer yes, and with multiple possibilities of realization. 举一反三. The answer to the first question is more like the mathematical / philosophical question of whether there is a solution / truth to a particular problem or not. For example, can the second case in Example 1.C.1 be explained by a preference relation while the choice rule itself is not consistent? Can it be explained by a rational preference relation? If it can then there are cases not consistent but rational, which is not impossible intuitively, suggesting that the choice rule is not exactly a generalization of preference relations and we cannot say that one assumption is weaker or stronger than the other. This should be a more fundamental question related to the structures behind these two different ways of storing behavior, of decision making or of choice.The authors in the book actually touched on this point while introducing on Page 14 a different way of realizing choice from a rational preference relation, i.e. a different definition 1.D.1., which allowed for choosing less than one's optimal choices and leaving behind some of those one is indifferent to, suggesting that, in an extreme case, one can be rationally indifferent among all alternatives which trivially serves as an explanation for any choice behavior, including those inconsistent ones, and in this sense, consistency is actually an additional restriction rather than a relaxation. In a sense those difficulties in preference theory actually also arise from this more restrictive view of how behavior is connected to rationality, and the Condorcet paradox on Page 8 can be readily solved using the indifferent preference relation.回应 20120223 15:40

小鸥 (小和尚)
Relationship between preference relations and choice rules is investigated in this section, but in fact, it is the rational preference relations and the consistent choice rules that is being compared. What about the question of whether every choice rule, consistent or not, can be explained by a preference relation, and whether every preference relation, rational or not, can be realized in a choice...20120223 15:40
Relationship between preference relations and choice rules is investigated in this section, but in fact, it is the rational preference relations and the consistent choice rules that is being compared. What about the question of whether every choice rule, consistent or not, can be explained by a preference relation, and whether every preference relation, rational or not, can be realized in a choice rule? The second question obviously has an answer yes, and with multiple possibilities of realization. 举一反三. The answer to the first question is more like the mathematical / philosophical question of whether there is a solution / truth to a particular problem or not. For example, can the second case in Example 1.C.1 be explained by a preference relation while the choice rule itself is not consistent? Can it be explained by a rational preference relation? If it can then there are cases not consistent but rational, which is not impossible intuitively, suggesting that the choice rule is not exactly a generalization of preference relations and we cannot say that one assumption is weaker or stronger than the other. This should be a more fundamental question related to the structures behind these two different ways of storing behavior, of decision making or of choice.The authors in the book actually touched on this point while introducing on Page 14 a different way of realizing choice from a rational preference relation, i.e. a different definition 1.D.1., which allowed for choosing less than one's optimal choices and leaving behind some of those one is indifferent to, suggesting that, in an extreme case, one can be rationally indifferent among all alternatives which trivially serves as an explanation for any choice behavior, including those inconsistent ones, and in this sense, consistency is actually an additional restriction rather than a relaxation. In a sense those difficulties in preference theory actually also arise from this more restrictive view of how behavior is connected to rationality, and the Condorcet paradox on Page 8 can be readily solved using the indifferent preference relation.回应 20120223 15:40 
Exact consumer's surplus and deadweight loss, Hausman(1981). 是这道题的原型。文章本身是非常有意思的。指出如何从从Marshall demand function to get indirect utility function, 剩下的故事就很简单了。通过expenditure function测量CV,EV什么的。 有意思的是，文章的 indirect utility function 是V，在MWG里面变成了V。 为什么要这样改呢？其实MWG认为这样改之后，这个 indirect utility function will become quasic... (2回应)
20121101 13:58
Exact consumer's surplus and deadweight loss, Hausman(1981). 是这道题的原型。文章本身是非常有意思的。指出如何从从Marshall demand function to get indirect utility function, 剩下的故事就很简单了。通过expenditure function测量CV,EV什么的。有意思的是，文章的 indirect utility function 是V，在MWG里面变成了V。为什么要这样改呢？其实MWG认为这样改之后，这个 indirect utility function will become quasiconvex，这是 indirect utility function要有的一个性质。但是，如果我们考虑文章的 indirect utility function，我们会发现当我们能规定V<0，那么quasiconvex，就能保证。所以，这要求我们对V里的系数有一定要求，直接在前面加个负号，并不能很好的解决这个问题。至于为什么V<0的时候， indirect utility function会quasiconvex，这需要我们用matlab验证。手算会比较麻烦。就是计算 v's bounded hessian is N.S.D. 说明 v 是quasiconcave, then v is quasiconvex.至于为什么“v's bounded hessian is N.S.D. 说明 v 是quasiconcave”，这个查一些全面的数理经济学书都会有的。在这里是3阶的matrix.2回应 20121101 13:58 
P 6.B.2. u and v, both of which represents the same preference, take vNM utility function. then u = av +b, a>0, for all L. this property is quiet strange, even though I could prove it.
20120202 12:41

E 6.B.2. u, which represents a preference, has the expected utility form. Then the preference satisfies the independence axiom. P 6.B.3. a rational preference relation satisfies the continuity and independence axiom, the preference could( or should?) have utility function that take the expected utility form. Above says that independence axiom and expected utility form are equivalence, based on ...
20120202 12:29
E 6.B.2. u, which represents a preference, has the expected utility form. Then the preference satisfies the independence axiom. P 6.B.3. a rational preference relation satisfies the continuity and independence axiom, the preference could( or should?) have utility function that take the expected utility form.Above says that independence axiom and expected utility form are equivalence, based on some assumptions. Should or could?回应 20120202 12:29

Dubos (Stay young, stay simple.)
"Thus, in many aspects, we are not going as deep as we did in Part III in the microanalysis of markets, of market failure, and of the strategic interdependence of market actors. The tradeoff in conceptual structure between Parts III and IV reflects, in a sense, the current state of frontier of microeconomic research."20130406 10:22
"Thus, in many aspects, we are not going as deep as we did in Part III in the microanalysis of markets, of market failure, and of the strategic interdependence of market actors. The tradeoff in conceptual structure between Parts III and IV reflects, in a sense, the current state of frontier of microeconomic research."回应 20130406 10:22 
Exact consumer's surplus and deadweight loss, Hausman(1981). 是这道题的原型。文章本身是非常有意思的。指出如何从从Marshall demand function to get indirect utility function, 剩下的故事就很简单了。通过expenditure function测量CV,EV什么的。 有意思的是，文章的 indirect utility function 是V，在MWG里面变成了V。 为什么要这样改呢？其实MWG认为这样改之后，这个 indirect utility function will become quasic... (2回应)
20121101 13:58
Exact consumer's surplus and deadweight loss, Hausman(1981). 是这道题的原型。文章本身是非常有意思的。指出如何从从Marshall demand function to get indirect utility function, 剩下的故事就很简单了。通过expenditure function测量CV,EV什么的。有意思的是，文章的 indirect utility function 是V，在MWG里面变成了V。为什么要这样改呢？其实MWG认为这样改之后，这个 indirect utility function will become quasiconvex，这是 indirect utility function要有的一个性质。但是，如果我们考虑文章的 indirect utility function，我们会发现当我们能规定V<0，那么quasiconvex，就能保证。所以，这要求我们对V里的系数有一定要求，直接在前面加个负号，并不能很好的解决这个问题。至于为什么V<0的时候， indirect utility function会quasiconvex，这需要我们用matlab验证。手算会比较麻烦。就是计算 v's bounded hessian is N.S.D. 说明 v 是quasiconcave, then v is quasiconvex.至于为什么“v's bounded hessian is N.S.D. 说明 v 是quasiconcave”，这个查一些全面的数理经济学书都会有的。在这里是3阶的matrix.2回应 20121101 13:58 
小鸥 (小和尚)
Duality in the optimization context basically means the existence of an equivalent representation of the optimization problem in linear form, coming from the connection between linearity and convexity. Basically if a person's decision behavior is more rational (convexity of consumption set), it will be more regular and predictable (convertable to linear optimization of the dual problem). A deeper ...20120302 18:00
Duality in the optimization context basically means the existence of an equivalent representation of the optimization problem in linear form, coming from the connection between linearity and convexity. Basically if a person's decision behavior is more rational (convexity of consumption set), it will be more regular and predictable (convertable to linear optimization of the dual problem). A deeper root of such a property lies in the property of binary ordering.回应 20120302 18:00 
小鸥 (小和尚)
Relationship between preference relations and choice rules is investigated in this section, but in fact, it is the rational preference relations and the consistent choice rules that is being compared. What about the question of whether every choice rule, consistent or not, can be explained by a preference relation, and whether every preference relation, rational or not, can be realized in a choice...20120223 15:40
Relationship between preference relations and choice rules is investigated in this section, but in fact, it is the rational preference relations and the consistent choice rules that is being compared. What about the question of whether every choice rule, consistent or not, can be explained by a preference relation, and whether every preference relation, rational or not, can be realized in a choice rule? The second question obviously has an answer yes, and with multiple possibilities of realization. 举一反三. The answer to the first question is more like the mathematical / philosophical question of whether there is a solution / truth to a particular problem or not. For example, can the second case in Example 1.C.1 be explained by a preference relation while the choice rule itself is not consistent? Can it be explained by a rational preference relation? If it can then there are cases not consistent but rational, which is not impossible intuitively, suggesting that the choice rule is not exactly a generalization of preference relations and we cannot say that one assumption is weaker or stronger than the other. This should be a more fundamental question related to the structures behind these two different ways of storing behavior, of decision making or of choice.The authors in the book actually touched on this point while introducing on Page 14 a different way of realizing choice from a rational preference relation, i.e. a different definition 1.D.1., which allowed for choosing less than one's optimal choices and leaving behind some of those one is indifferent to, suggesting that, in an extreme case, one can be rationally indifferent among all alternatives which trivially serves as an explanation for any choice behavior, including those inconsistent ones, and in this sense, consistency is actually an additional restriction rather than a relaxation. In a sense those difficulties in preference theory actually also arise from this more restrictive view of how behavior is connected to rationality, and the Condorcet paradox on Page 8 can be readily solved using the indifferent preference relation.回应 20120223 15:40
论坛 · · · · · ·
非常好用的辅助材料！  来自Ann  20120927  
求电子版 或者比较便宜的购买渠道  来自Evanthe  2 回应  20120202 
看到你们都说看不懂我也就安心了  来自Lena  20151119  
很难  来自欢乐满人间  20100624  
想成为slotion manual一样的存在  来自王大魔牛  1 回应  20120709 
> 浏览更多话题
其他版本有售 · · · · · ·
这本书的其他版本 · · · · · · ( 全部5 )
 中国人民大学出版社版 201411 / 11人读过 / 有售
 上海财经大学出版社版 200510 / 97人读过
 中国社会科学版 2001年3月 / 70人读过
 上海财经大学出版社版 201451 / 4人读过 / 有售
以下豆列推荐 · · · · · · ( 全部 )
 经济学经典书目介绍 (SST邪恶8进制)
 Glen Weyl的价格理论书单（威力加强版） (Yii)
 经济学研究生基础教材 (Double Helix)
 1000+ 豆瓣9.0+的書 (笃动武者)
 我想读而没有好版本或没有钱买或买不到的书 (Χάος)
谁读这本书?
二手市场
订阅关于Microeconomic Theory的评论:
feed: rss 2.0
1 有用 Ann 20130726
讲的还算明白，如果配上Norlan Miller的笔记就好了！
0 有用 贝叶氏·蛋 20111229
"most of the time, I was trying to figure out what the authors are saying..." by maxwell pak
0 有用 时间的玫瑰 20160331
几年前的噩梦终于实现了。同学的小孩要开始学数学证明题了。。。某渣也还在学数学证明题。。。哦人生！
0 有用 公鸡 20120526
极品
0 有用 李敬敬 20151231
经典不需要备注………
0 有用 喵东瓜 20170401
真的很费劲 :( 尤其对于我这种没有学过analysis的。但是一个朋友说，他很享受微观...我们真的不是一种人loll
0 有用 wang7788 20170122
让我自学了好多数学
0 有用 CL 20170108
无上经典MWG
0 有用 Angela 20161122
呵呵。
0 有用 gua1023 20161006
很好的高微教材