出版社: W. W. Norton & Company
出版年: 1992317
页数: 563
定价: USD 68.56
装帧: Hardcover
ISBN: 9780393957358
内容简介 · · · · · ·
The Third Edition continues to supply the building blocks of microeconomic analysis: a thorough treatment of optimization and equilibrium methods, coupled with numerous examples of their application. The Third Edition expands on the earlier editions in two ways. First, the coverage has been rewritten and rearranged. Second, chapters have been added on game theory, oligopoly, as...
The Third Edition continues to supply the building blocks of microeconomic analysis: a thorough treatment of optimization and equilibrium methods, coupled with numerous examples of their application. The Third Edition expands on the earlier editions in two ways. First, the coverage has been rewritten and rearranged. Second, chapters have been added on game theory, oligopoly, asset markets, and information economics. The new chapters fully update the text, highlighting significant developments of the last decade at a level that is accessible for firstyear graduate students.
Microeconomic Analysis has been a fixture of graduate programs in economics for fifteen years. It has held this position because it has the authority, the clarity, and the breadth necessary for a classic text. This new Third Edition continues to supply the building blocks of microeconomic analysis: a thorough treatment of optimization and equilibrium methods, coupled with numerous examples of their application.
The Third Edition expands on the earlier editions in two ways. First, the existing coverage has been rewritten and rearranged. Second, new chapters have been added on game theory, oligopoly, asset markets, and information economics. The rearrangement follows the model of Hal Varian's Intermediate Microeconomics: a number of short chapters, each devoted to a single topic. In fact, the topical division is as close as possible to that of the undergraduate text. This makes it easy to review undergraduate material before moving on to graduate material. The new chapters highlight significant developments in microeconomic theory in the last ten years at a level that is accessible for firstyear graduate students.
Classic features:
* Emphasis on the dual approach to consumer and firm behavior.
* Integration of the modem analytic approach with classical price theory
* Analysis of economic behavior using classical methods of comparative statics, duality, and nonparametric methods.
* Emphasis on analytical techniques that are useful in applied research.
Highlights of the revision:
* New chapter on game theory that provides an appropriate introduction for firstyear students.
* New chapter on oligopoly that features many of the recent developments in this area.
* New chapter on asset markets that describes "what every economist should know" about the theory of financial markets.
* New chapter on information economics that provides a unified treatment of incentives and markets in the presence of information asymmetries.
喜欢读"Microeconomic Analysis, Third Edition"的人也喜欢 · · · · · ·
Microeconomic Analysis, Third Edition的话题 · · · · · · ( 全部 条 )
Microeconomic Analysis, Third Edition的书评 · · · · · · ( 全部 3 条 )
An underestimated classical textbook after the MWG born
> 更多书评3篇

小鸥 (小和尚)
Are they not essentially the same? Is public good not just a positive externality where the good is shared so that consumption by one person benefits the utility of everyone else?20120301 23:19

小鸥 (小和尚)
Samuelson introduced physics into economics. It has become ever clearer that it is into the concepts of elasticity and equilibrium that analogy with physics was introduced. There has to be a relationship between the change in elasticity (yet not elasticity itself) of a rubber band as you stretch it and whether it springs back (whether it can stay equilibrium at the stretched state) after you relea...20120214 17:26
Samuelson introduced physics into economics. It has become ever clearer that it is into the concepts of elasticity and equilibrium that analogy with physics was introduced. There has to be a relationship between the change in elasticity (yet not elasticity itself) of a rubber band as you stretch it and whether it springs back (whether it can stay equilibrium at the stretched state) after you release it.From P8/Ch4 of Fei's lecture notes, it is suggested that there is a relationship between the convexity of production set and the elasticity of scale.回应 20120214 17:26 
小鸥 (小和尚)
In a sense duality is just something related to the hyperplanes in separation theory. While duality used calculus and differentials to represent the tangent price lines, separation theory used inner product of vectors to represent the line. Varian's book is really looking more like a devolution from Takayama's, in terms of the use of mathematics, which was introduced into economics to clarify thin...20120213 20:12
In a sense duality is just something related to the hyperplanes in separation theory. While duality used calculus and differentials to represent the tangent price lines, separation theory used inner product of vectors to represent the line. Varian's book is really looking more like a devolution from Takayama's, in terms of the use of mathematics, which was introduced into economics to clarify things better, and now people are going back to complicating them.However this might be rather a necessary situation. Whenever a new existence comes in, nature has to integrate it into its system by enriching it in two directions, complicating and simplifying, so that it gets connection to everything else, and so that the connections are binded together under a single rule. Both simplicity and complexity are natural. Humans do best if they follow the natural way. And for the intellect as an existence in the world, both complexity and simplicity is needed for it to integrate into the world. In this sense, the popular Chinese system of the complicating Confucious together with the simplifying Buddhism, or rather Zenism, is quite a working combination.回应 20120213 20:12 
小鸥 (小和尚)
The analogy suggested in this title is also mentioned in the book's chapter on game theory, where the author said that game theory is just an extension of decision theories, ....a generalization of standard, oneperson decision theory...In a sense, the optimization part (of profit, cost on the firm's side and of utility, demand on the consumer's side) of Microeconomics is just about obtaining the ...20120211 18:44
The analogy suggested in this title is also mentioned in the book's chapter on game theory, where the author said that game theory is just an extension of decision theories,
In a sense, the optimization part (of profit, cost on the firm's side and of utility, demand on the consumer's side) of Microeconomics is just about obtaining the payoff tables in games, and they constitute a subgame where only one agent is involved, i.e. subgames (improper) with only the terminal nodes in an extensive form game tree. And the same idea of an equilibrium found by statewise examination (living in heaven without knowing the path to it) is probably also present in the less 'gamely' equilibrium analysis, where the strategypayoff connection is the more complicated part to calculate, while in game theory such calculation is assumed to have already been informed for the various players but the strategystrategy connection is more investigated to deal with complications in such ways.How does profit / utility maximization and cost /expanse minimization genuinely become different, while appearing to be much the same? If I am faced with some decisions about how much production to make, or how much to consume (which is slightly different since utility is not generally considered measurable as in production), I can generally adjust my input amount accordingly, and the important decision is not so much on choosing the cheapest ones (although should be adjusted for), but rather finding the satiating level, before which spending more can actually bring more profits, and the actual level is determined by a kind of efficiency of production technology (or greediness in consuming). Yet if I am trying to choose between alternative inputs for production so that cost is minimized, the relative efficiencies of respective inputs (efficiency of efficiencies / substitution rate) seem to become more relevant than their aggregated efficiency, and the gaming tinge (level of satiating) is not yet there. In a sense cost minimization is more conservative than profit maximization, and while profit maximizers generally do minimize cost, they can also make profits being luxurious. The traditional (or obsolete?) profit seekers either emphasize too much on minimizing cost or they believe that the more production the better (which could be that they don't really have alternative ways to produce, for example a field tending farmer, as opposed to a modern investor). Maybe that's how we accumulated enough for the modern consumers to think exactly the opposite, and since utilities are not really measurable, they just take them as unlimited.The satiating level mentioned above should be present at all levels of optimization, and actually is very likely to be the one thing that links the simple (optimization) and complex (game) decision theories. At an optimal / equilibrium decision, any unilateral move away from the decision would lead astray the optimum. In applying the game theory, it is fitting this equilibrium concept into a specific setting, what kind of moves that can lead you astray, is it jumping upwards or swaying sideways that take you off the balance beam, that is to be found out, and theory just gives a criteria for you to judge whether you are right or not. In applying optimization theories and deciding for optimal actions however, these game settings are already part of how people found the theory, and it is already confirmed that swaying sideways can take you down from the balance beam, so you start from this point and find some other signs that can tell you whether you are swaying sideways or not, or more precisely, whether you are standing straight, touching the beam, or not, which is more or less equivalent statements / properties / definitions of swaying sideways, and in mathematical terms they are along the necessary and sufficient line of derivation, including equations. Some common types of such signs of equilibrium / optimum. (it might be actually understood as a kind of orderpreserving transformation from different equilibrium states to different values of a certain property)(1) Tangency conditions. P27. P42. P51. P73. P89. P101. P107. P109. P110. (application diagrams not included)Marginal rates of the decision factors that prevail at optimums is connected to some external factors such as price.....a generalization of standard, oneperson decision theory...
回应 20120211 18:44

The two most important "degrees" in economics are the zeroth and first degree. 亮点是这句话的注:<原文开始><However, it is sometimes thought that the Masters and the PH.D. are even more important./原文结束> (1回应)
20110922 11:47

小鸥 (小和尚)
Are they not essentially the same? Is public good not just a positive externality where the good is shared so that consumption by one person benefits the utility of everyone else?20120301 23:19

小鸥 (小和尚)
Samuelson introduced physics into economics. It has become ever clearer that it is into the concepts of elasticity and equilibrium that analogy with physics was introduced. There has to be a relationship between the change in elasticity (yet not elasticity itself) of a rubber band as you stretch it and whether it springs back (whether it can stay equilibrium at the stretched state) after you relea...20120214 17:26
Samuelson introduced physics into economics. It has become ever clearer that it is into the concepts of elasticity and equilibrium that analogy with physics was introduced. There has to be a relationship between the change in elasticity (yet not elasticity itself) of a rubber band as you stretch it and whether it springs back (whether it can stay equilibrium at the stretched state) after you release it.From P8/Ch4 of Fei's lecture notes, it is suggested that there is a relationship between the convexity of production set and the elasticity of scale.回应 20120214 17:26 
小鸥 (小和尚)
In a sense duality is just something related to the hyperplanes in separation theory. While duality used calculus and differentials to represent the tangent price lines, separation theory used inner product of vectors to represent the line. Varian's book is really looking more like a devolution from Takayama's, in terms of the use of mathematics, which was introduced into economics to clarify thin...20120213 20:12
In a sense duality is just something related to the hyperplanes in separation theory. While duality used calculus and differentials to represent the tangent price lines, separation theory used inner product of vectors to represent the line. Varian's book is really looking more like a devolution from Takayama's, in terms of the use of mathematics, which was introduced into economics to clarify things better, and now people are going back to complicating them.However this might be rather a necessary situation. Whenever a new existence comes in, nature has to integrate it into its system by enriching it in two directions, complicating and simplifying, so that it gets connection to everything else, and so that the connections are binded together under a single rule. Both simplicity and complexity are natural. Humans do best if they follow the natural way. And for the intellect as an existence in the world, both complexity and simplicity is needed for it to integrate into the world. In this sense, the popular Chinese system of the complicating Confucious together with the simplifying Buddhism, or rather Zenism, is quite a working combination.回应 20120213 20:12

小鸥 (小和尚)
Are they not essentially the same? Is public good not just a positive externality where the good is shared so that consumption by one person benefits the utility of everyone else?20120301 23:19

小鸥 (小和尚)
Samuelson introduced physics into economics. It has become ever clearer that it is into the concepts of elasticity and equilibrium that analogy with physics was introduced. There has to be a relationship between the change in elasticity (yet not elasticity itself) of a rubber band as you stretch it and whether it springs back (whether it can stay equilibrium at the stretched state) after you relea...20120214 17:26
Samuelson introduced physics into economics. It has become ever clearer that it is into the concepts of elasticity and equilibrium that analogy with physics was introduced. There has to be a relationship between the change in elasticity (yet not elasticity itself) of a rubber band as you stretch it and whether it springs back (whether it can stay equilibrium at the stretched state) after you release it.From P8/Ch4 of Fei's lecture notes, it is suggested that there is a relationship between the convexity of production set and the elasticity of scale.回应 20120214 17:26 
小鸥 (小和尚)
In a sense duality is just something related to the hyperplanes in separation theory. While duality used calculus and differentials to represent the tangent price lines, separation theory used inner product of vectors to represent the line. Varian's book is really looking more like a devolution from Takayama's, in terms of the use of mathematics, which was introduced into economics to clarify thin...20120213 20:12
In a sense duality is just something related to the hyperplanes in separation theory. While duality used calculus and differentials to represent the tangent price lines, separation theory used inner product of vectors to represent the line. Varian's book is really looking more like a devolution from Takayama's, in terms of the use of mathematics, which was introduced into economics to clarify things better, and now people are going back to complicating them.However this might be rather a necessary situation. Whenever a new existence comes in, nature has to integrate it into its system by enriching it in two directions, complicating and simplifying, so that it gets connection to everything else, and so that the connections are binded together under a single rule. Both simplicity and complexity are natural. Humans do best if they follow the natural way. And for the intellect as an existence in the world, both complexity and simplicity is needed for it to integrate into the world. In this sense, the popular Chinese system of the complicating Confucious together with the simplifying Buddhism, or rather Zenism, is quite a working combination.回应 20120213 20:12 
小鸥 (小和尚)
The analogy suggested in this title is also mentioned in the book's chapter on game theory, where the author said that game theory is just an extension of decision theories, ....a generalization of standard, oneperson decision theory...In a sense, the optimization part (of profit, cost on the firm's side and of utility, demand on the consumer's side) of Microeconomics is just about obtaining the ...20120211 18:44
The analogy suggested in this title is also mentioned in the book's chapter on game theory, where the author said that game theory is just an extension of decision theories,
In a sense, the optimization part (of profit, cost on the firm's side and of utility, demand on the consumer's side) of Microeconomics is just about obtaining the payoff tables in games, and they constitute a subgame where only one agent is involved, i.e. subgames (improper) with only the terminal nodes in an extensive form game tree. And the same idea of an equilibrium found by statewise examination (living in heaven without knowing the path to it) is probably also present in the less 'gamely' equilibrium analysis, where the strategypayoff connection is the more complicated part to calculate, while in game theory such calculation is assumed to have already been informed for the various players but the strategystrategy connection is more investigated to deal with complications in such ways.How does profit / utility maximization and cost /expanse minimization genuinely become different, while appearing to be much the same? If I am faced with some decisions about how much production to make, or how much to consume (which is slightly different since utility is not generally considered measurable as in production), I can generally adjust my input amount accordingly, and the important decision is not so much on choosing the cheapest ones (although should be adjusted for), but rather finding the satiating level, before which spending more can actually bring more profits, and the actual level is determined by a kind of efficiency of production technology (or greediness in consuming). Yet if I am trying to choose between alternative inputs for production so that cost is minimized, the relative efficiencies of respective inputs (efficiency of efficiencies / substitution rate) seem to become more relevant than their aggregated efficiency, and the gaming tinge (level of satiating) is not yet there. In a sense cost minimization is more conservative than profit maximization, and while profit maximizers generally do minimize cost, they can also make profits being luxurious. The traditional (or obsolete?) profit seekers either emphasize too much on minimizing cost or they believe that the more production the better (which could be that they don't really have alternative ways to produce, for example a field tending farmer, as opposed to a modern investor). Maybe that's how we accumulated enough for the modern consumers to think exactly the opposite, and since utilities are not really measurable, they just take them as unlimited.The satiating level mentioned above should be present at all levels of optimization, and actually is very likely to be the one thing that links the simple (optimization) and complex (game) decision theories. At an optimal / equilibrium decision, any unilateral move away from the decision would lead astray the optimum. In applying the game theory, it is fitting this equilibrium concept into a specific setting, what kind of moves that can lead you astray, is it jumping upwards or swaying sideways that take you off the balance beam, that is to be found out, and theory just gives a criteria for you to judge whether you are right or not. In applying optimization theories and deciding for optimal actions however, these game settings are already part of how people found the theory, and it is already confirmed that swaying sideways can take you down from the balance beam, so you start from this point and find some other signs that can tell you whether you are swaying sideways or not, or more precisely, whether you are standing straight, touching the beam, or not, which is more or less equivalent statements / properties / definitions of swaying sideways, and in mathematical terms they are along the necessary and sufficient line of derivation, including equations. Some common types of such signs of equilibrium / optimum. (it might be actually understood as a kind of orderpreserving transformation from different equilibrium states to different values of a certain property)(1) Tangency conditions. P27. P42. P51. P73. P89. P101. P107. P109. P110. (application diagrams not included)Marginal rates of the decision factors that prevail at optimums is connected to some external factors such as price.....a generalization of standard, oneperson decision theory...
回应 20120211 18:44
在哪儿买这本书 · · · · · ·
这本书的其他版本 · · · · · · ( 全部3 )
 W W Norton & Co Ltd版 19840531 / 34人读过
 未知出版社版 4人读过
以下豆列推荐 · · · · · · ( 全部 )
 经济学经典书目介绍 (SST邪恶8进制)
 Books to Study Before Going to Grad School in Econ (Kat)
 经济学教材推荐（从初阶到高阶） (BWW)
 Finance & Economics & Management (化尘)
 postgrad cette ani (musagetes)
谁读这本书?
二手市场
 > 点这儿转让 有114人想读,手里有一本闲着?
订阅关于Microeconomic Analysis, Third Edition的评论:
feed: rss 2.0
0 有用 Vincent 20140105
我操 礼拜六就要考了
0 有用 MiJ™ 20150624
a light read when mwc is too obscure
0 有用 f 20120810
微觀在用的教科書。
0 有用 不伺机 20140222
太老了，已经二十多年没出新版，现在只适合教学
0 有用 [已注销] 20100117
比较晦涩==但是一学期下来再读发现的确精辟啊
0 有用 解压 20171220
最靠谱微观教材
0 有用 Cat Helix 20171222
看了大约十章意识到学数学之后对应用失去了耐心……
0 有用 gui 20161209
读了10遍？有点忘记了。
0 有用 MiJ™ 20150624
a light read when mwc is too obscure
1 有用 五岳真形 20150108
自MWG出版后，这本书的价值就被严重低估！读了一部分MWG以后，个人觉得，这才是真正值得博士生学习的高微1教材（CH111；CH178；CH2122）。因为，Varian在全书中贯彻一种真正需要微观经济学家关注的东西：如何从“显示偏好理论”反推偏好的一些假设是否成立。而MWG大而无当，虽然严格，但是严重缺少中心思想，这么说吧——它就是一个材料大仓库而已。 如果确实觉得这本书涉及的一些数学证明不够深入（注意：仅是不够“深入”，事实上这本书涉及的数学工具广度基本足够高级微观课程学习了），那么用Takayama的《mathematical economics》(1985)的前三章就可以很好的补充。