Policymakers often intervene in goods markets to effect redistribution -- for example, via price controls, differential taxation, or in-kind transfers. We investigate the optimality of such policies alongside the (optimally-designed) income tax. In our framework, agents possess private information about their ability to generate income and consumption preferences, and a planner maximizes a social welfare function subject to resource constraints. We uncover a generalization of the Atkinson-Stiglitz theorem by showing that goods markets should be undistorted if (i) individual utility functions feature no income effects, (ii) redistributive preferences depend only on agents’ ability, and (iii) there is no statistical correlation between ability and taste for goods. We also show, however, that the conclusion of the Atkinson-Stiglitz theorem fails if any of the three assumptions is relaxed. In a special case of our model with linear utilities, binary ability, and continuous willingness to pay for a single good, we characterize the globally optimal mechanism and show that it may feature means-tested consumption subsidies, in-kind transfers, and differential commodity taxation.

We propose a framework for studying the optimal design of rights relating to the control of an economic resource - which we broadly refer to as property rights. An agent makes an investment decision, affecting her valuation for the resource, and then participates in a trading mechanism chosen by a principal in a sequentially rational fashion, leading to a hold-up problem. A designer - who would like to incentivize efficient investment and whose preferences may differ from those of the principal - can endow the agent with a menu of rights that determine the agent's set of outside options in the interaction with the principal. We characterize the optimal rights as a function of the designer's and the principal's objectives, and the investment technology. We find that optimal rights typically differ from a classical property right giving the agent full control over the resource. In particular, we show that the optimal menu requires at most two types of rights, including an option-to-own, which grants
the agent control over the resource upon paying a pre-specified price.

A designer relies on a costly screening device to allocate a set of goods, aiming to maximize a social welfare function. We provide conditions for one screening device to dominate another. We show that the performance of a screening device depends on two channels: (i) targeting effectiveness which measures the alignment between the implemented and desired assignments, and (ii) rent provision which determines the utilities of agents receiving the goods net of the screening costs. We link these two channels to distinct properties of the joint distribution of agents’ characteristics, leading to a number of simple empirical tests for comparing screening devices.

I study a simple equity-efficiency problem:  A designer allocates a fixed amount of money to a population of agents differing in privately-observed marginal values for money. She can only screen agents by asking them to burn utility (through some socially wasteful activity). I show that giving a lump-sum payment is outperformed by a mechanism with utility burning when the agent with the lowest money-denominated cost of engaging in the wasteful activity has an expected value for money that exceeds the average value by more than a factor of two.