Imperfect information

From CEOpedia

Imperfect information refers to situations where economic agents lack complete knowledge about market conditions, product quality, or the actions of other parties (Stiglitz J.E. 2002, p.461)[1]. Classical economics assumed perfect information—everyone knows everything relevant to their decisions. Reality differs sharply. Buyers don't know if used cars are lemons. Insurance companies can't see which applicants will file claims. Employers can't perfectly assess job candidates. These gaps shape markets in ways that pure theory missed for decades.

The recognition that information matters—and that it's distributed unevenly—transformed economics in the late 20th century. Three economists (George Akerlof, Michael Spence, and Joseph Stiglitz) shared the 2001 Nobel Prize for their work on information asymmetries. Their insights explain why certain markets fail, why middlemen exist, and why signaling and screening pervade economic life.

Types of information problems

Imperfect information takes several forms:

Asymmetric information

One party knows more than another. The used car seller knows if the engine has problems; the buyer doesn't. The insurance applicant knows their health history; the insurer sees only what's disclosed.

This asymmetry creates power imbalances. The informed party can exploit their advantage. Markets may function poorly or fail entirely[2].

Incomplete information

Nobody knows everything. Future states of the world remain uncertain. Technologies evolve unpredictably. Consumer preferences shift. Even with symmetric information, all parties face uncertainty.

This differs from asymmetry—the problem isn't that someone knows more, but that nobody knows enough.

Costly information

Information exists but acquiring it takes resources. You could research every product exhaustively before buying—but the time cost exceeds the benefit. Rational ignorance results: remaining uninformed because learning costs too much.

Adverse selection

When one party can't distinguish quality before transacting, adverse selection emerges.

The market for lemons. George Akerlof's 1970 paper became a classic. Imagine a used car market. Some cars are good; some are lemons (unreliable). Sellers know which is which; buyers can't tell.

Buyers, knowing some cars are lemons, offer only average prices—reflecting a mix of good and bad cars. But at average prices, owners of good cars won't sell—the price undervalues their vehicles. They exit the market.

Now the market contains a higher proportion of lemons. Buyers adjust expectations downward and offer lower prices. More good-car owners exit. The spiral continues. Eventually, only lemons remain—or the market collapses entirely[3].

Insurance markets. People with higher health risks have stronger incentives to buy insurance. If insurers can't distinguish risk levels, they must charge average premiums. Low-risk individuals find these premiums excessive and don't buy. The risk pool worsens. Premiums rise. More low-risk people drop out. The "death spiral" can destroy the market.

This explains why insurers invest heavily in underwriting—trying to identify risk before issuing policies. Pre-existing condition exclusions, waiting periods, and medical exams all combat adverse selection.

Credit markets. Borrowers know their likelihood of repayment better than lenders. Risky borrowers readily accept high interest rates (they don't expect to repay anyway). Safe borrowers reject high rates as unfair. As rates rise, the borrower pool becomes increasingly risky.

This credit rationing phenomenon explains why banks sometimes refuse to lend at any interest rate to certain customers—higher rates would only attract worse risks[4].

Moral hazard

Moral hazard arises after transactions, when one party changes behavior because they don't bear the full consequences.

Insurance again. Once insured, people take more risks. The insured driver parks less carefully. The homeowner with fire insurance becomes careless about fire hazards. The health insurance holder consumes more medical care.

The insurance company can't perfectly monitor behavior. If it could, it would adjust premiums accordingly. Information asymmetry enables the hazard.

Employment. Employers can't observe effort perfectly. Employees, once hired, might shirk. This explains performance bonuses, monitoring systems, and efficiency wages—all attempts to align incentives when behavior isn't observable.

Banking and bailouts. Banks taking excessive risks created moral hazard concerns in 2008. If they win, shareholders profit. If they lose, governments bail them out. "Heads I win, tails you lose" encourages risk-taking. Too-big-to-fail status essentially subsidizes risk[5].

Market responses

Markets develop mechanisms to address information problems:

Signaling

Michael Spence showed how informed parties can credibly communicate quality. The key: signals must be costly enough that low-quality types won't mimic them.

Education as signal. College degrees may signal ability more than they teach skills. Smart, disciplined people find college easier—the signal costs them less. Even if education adds no productivity, employers rationally prefer educated candidates because completing education demonstrates underlying quality.

Warranties. Only sellers confident in quality offer generous warranties. The warranty signals quality because providing it for defective products would be costly.

Advertising spending. Heavy advertising for a new product signals confidence in repeat purchases. Why spend millions promoting something customers won't buy twice?[6]

Screening

Uninformed parties design mechanisms to induce self-selection.

Deductibles in insurance. High deductibles attract low-risk customers (who don't expect to file claims). High-risk customers prefer low deductibles despite higher premiums. Offering both options separates the pools.

Quantity discounts. Large buyers value low prices more; small buyers value convenience more. Offering quantity discounts induces self-sorting.

Job interviews and probation. Extensive interview processes screen candidates. Probationary periods let employers observe before committing.

Reputation

Repeated interactions create incentives for honest behavior. A car dealer who repeatedly sells lemons loses customers. Long-term relationships reduce information problems.

This explains brand value, professional licenses, and accreditation systems—all mechanisms making reputation valuable enough to protect[7].

Information intermediaries

Third parties specialize in information production. Credit rating agencies evaluate borrowers. Consumer Reports tests products. Home inspectors examine properties. Restaurant critics review meals.

These intermediaries exist because individuals face prohibitive information costs. Centralizing evaluation creates economies of scale.

Welfare implications

Imperfect information causes inefficiency:

Underproduction. High-quality goods may not be produced if producers can't convince buyers of quality. Valuable transactions don't occur.

Resource waste. Signaling and screening consume resources. Education acquired purely as a signal wastes years of human capital. Advertising that conveys no information beyond "we're confident" uses real resources.

Market failure. Some markets may not exist at all. Insurance for certain risks becomes unavailable. Credit for certain borrowers evaporates[8].

Distributional effects. Information advantages translate into wealth transfers from uninformed to informed parties.

Policy responses

Governments intervene when private solutions prove inadequate:

Mandatory disclosure. Securities laws require companies to disclose material information. Nutrition labels inform food buyers. Truth-in-lending rules reveal loan costs.

Quality standards. Minimum standards prevent the worst products from entering markets. Building codes, food safety regulations, professional licensing.

Insurance mandates. Requiring everyone to buy insurance (as with automobiles or health coverage) prevents adverse selection by forcing low-risk individuals into the pool.

Information provision. Government-produced information (statistics, research) addresses gaps private markets won't fill.

Regulation of intermediaries. Oversight of credit rating agencies, auditors, and other information intermediaries addresses conflicts of interest that might corrupt their assessments[9].

Behavioral considerations

Behavioral economics complicates the picture further. Even when information exists, people may:

  • Ignore it (complexity, overload)
  • Misinterpret it (cognitive biases)
  • Discount it (overconfidence)
  • Forget it (limited memory)

Information provision alone may not solve problems if recipients don't process information rationally. Simplified disclosures, defaults, and choice architecture may help more than raw data dumps.

Applications across fields

Imperfect information analysis extends broadly:

Healthcare. Patients can't evaluate medical quality. Doctors have better information about treatments. Principal-agent problems pervade the doctor-patient relationship.

Politics. Voters have limited information about candidates and policies. Politicians have incentives to obscure or mislead. Rational voter ignorance is well documented[10].

Labor markets. Employers can't observe worker quality before hiring. Workers can't observe workplace quality before accepting jobs.

Financial markets. Insider information advantages some traders. Corporate insiders know more than outside investors.

The framework applies wherever information matters and isn't equally distributed—which is virtually everywhere.


Imperfect information — recommended articles
Market failure — Risk management — Decision making — Economic efficiency

References

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Stiglitz J.E. (2002), Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics, p.461
  2. ↑ Akerlof G.A. (1970), The Market for "Lemons", pp.488-500
  3. ↑ Akerlof G.A. (1970), The Market for "Lemons", pp.489-492
  4. ↑ Stiglitz J.E., Weiss A. (1981), Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information
  5. ↑ Stiglitz J.E. (2002), Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics, pp.478-485
  6. ↑ Spence M. (1973), Job Market Signaling, pp.355-374
  7. ↑ Rothschild M., Stiglitz J.E. (1976), Equilibrium in Competitive Insurance Markets
  8. ↑ Stiglitz J.E. (2002), Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics, pp.492-498
  9. ↑ Akerlof G.A. (1970), The Market for "Lemons", pp.495-500
  10. ↑ Stiglitz J.E. (2002), Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics, pp.498-501

Author: Sławomir Wawak

Retrieved from "https://ceopedia.org/index.php?title=Imperfect_information&oldid=6582"