Rating: 
Summary: The classic first-year micro sequence text
Review: "Mas-Colell" (as this book is universally known) is widely regarded as the most comprehensive and sophisticated textbook for the first-year graduate microeconomics sequence. It the text favored by theorists and foreign graduate students (for different reasons) and disliked by those who prefer a less mathematical, more pedagogical approach. Apart from that, it is largely remembered for its weight; particularly by those graduate students whose micro classes were held across campus ;).
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Text
Review: This is an extremely well written and comprehensive book.Some (including my fellow reviewer Mr. Mackenzie) have criticised it on the basis that its methodology suggests that an argument expressed in mathematical terms is inherently more valuable than the same argument expressed in verbal terms. However, this criticism is invalid, tendentious and is a "straw man" critique (ie. where one makes up a weak proposition, in order to easily demolish it); I know of no-one who would suggest that an argument expressed in mathematical terms is inherently more valuable than the same argument expressed in verbal terms. The point which one may more clearly appreciate after reading Mas-Colell et al is that some arguments require less space or time or are more comprehensible if made verbally, while others require less space or time or are more comprehensible if made mathematically. (This does not make one form of an argument more valuable, but simply easier to comprehend or demonstrate or both). Thus, economists should continually be thinking about these issues, in order to find the best vehicles for their arguments. A good example of this can be found in Mas-Colell et al's discussion of the two Welfare theorems. One should remember that it took approximately 180 years since Adam Smith ("The Wealth of Nations",1776) first stated a version of the First Welfare Theorem (loosely paraphrasing - that individual selfishness can lead to collective good), for this to be proved axiomatically. Without the systematic thinking, and use of assumptions, displayed in MasColell et al this would still today not have occurred and Smith's conclusion would still be a mere conjecture. [To put it rather more crudely, a proof of the First Welfare Theorem using purely verbal arguments eluded mankind for 180 years, but was found within 10 years using a combination of verbal and mathematical arguments]. All interested in thinking, not just about the budget deficit or price of electricity, but about how people make decisions about all facets of their life, should buy this book. One of its strengths is that it spend time discussing why and how each of the results derived here is important (eg. Arrow's demonstration of the impossibility of consistent voting preferences under certain conditions, which revolutionised how political scientists thought about voting) rather than merely demonstrating the results. By the time one comes to the end of it, one will have a good understanding of both what we do know, and do not yet know, about human behaviour.
Rating: 
Summary: Style over Substance
Review: This book does an excellent job of representing cutting edge economic theory. Economic theory now consists largely of commonsense propositions that academics translate into the least comprehensible form. Instead of clear and concise verbal logic that most anyone can understand, Mas Colel, Whinston and Green employ sophisticated math models. Why? I have heard many arguments in favor of this approach. 'Verbal logic is not logical'. 'The verbal approach is too easy'. 'You can only understand economics using math'. 'Math models are really cool'. 'Math is formal'. 'You need to learn the tools of mathematical analysis so you can read professional journals'. The fact if the matter is that one can depict complex concepts either with words or with math. Math does not guarantee necessarily deliver the right answers. Some math models 'prove' that markets are efficient, others 'prove' that markets fail. This proves only that some math models must be dead wrong. As for formalism, this is an application of the fallacy of style. The validity of any idea never depends upon the manner in which we present it. As for reading journals, the argument that we must learn math modeling because we cannot read journal without it begs the question. Why do we need complex math models in journals? We do not. Logic is logic, verbal or mathematical. Of course, verbal presentations can be flawed too, but anyone who dismisses the verbal approach for this commits the fallacy of false comparisons. There are bad uses of math too. The verbal approach is superior because more people can understand it more easily. The 'formal' approach in this book also tends to distract academics from real issues. The notion of competitive equilibrium is a mere thought experiment that has absolutely no relevance to the real world. Yet, many economists focus their attention on constructing ever more sophisticated Walrasian thought experiments. What does this accomplish? Unfortunately, many enter the economics profession simply because they enjoy solving systems of mathematical equations. Some like solving math models for the same reasons that others like solving cross word puzzles- it's a game! For others, constructing math models is a contest to see who can perform the most spectacular intellectual gymnastics. Is this what tuition and taxes should fund? Some also contend that they can use math models for central planning. Since we now all know that socialism does not work, that argument fails too. The net result of the approach of this book is that many academic economists are doing work that is not worth the paper it is written on. Many Econometricians and Economic Historians do interesting work. Few theoretical economists write things that are worth reading these days. Obsession with math modeling has made cutting edge theoretical economics largely irrelevant, except to those who like playing math games. It is also the fact that some formalists fail to understand even the most basic principles of economics, even in their own fields. They are too busy working out formal proofs, like the ones that litter this book, to bother with the concepts that math is supposedly indispensable for understanding. This book stands as a monument to these sad facts. The style of this book is [bad]. It teaches students the toys that they can use to perform intellectual gymnastics as academics. The authors do work a few substanative concepts into their math. Unfortunately, the substance of this book is almost as poor as its presentation. The authors demonstrate little understanding of the transactions costs/property rights economics developed by Coase, Demsetz, and Alchian and no understanding of Hayek's knowledge problem. This books discussion of public goods and monopoly suffer from a lack of understanding of these concepts. There is little Public Choice in this book. They take a run through the Arrow theorem, but that's about all you will find on Public Choice here. Real institutions and processes get almost no play in this book. The best parts are the parts on game theory. Here the authors stray away from their useless thought experiments and hit on some real issues. There are vastly superior books on game theory, so this bright spot hardly makes up for this books general deficiencies. If you are unfortunate enough to get this book assigned to you in a class, you will have to plow through it (as I did). Otherwise, reading it is a complete waste of time. ...
Rating: 
Summary: Good for some things....
Review: I own all of the 'major' graduate-level texts on micro, so I thought I would weigh in here. The four major competitors and their strengths/weaknesses: Kreps - Too chatty and not enough rigor. Very, very good for the intuition of game theory. Probably the most entertaining book, but we ain't doing this for entertainment, are we? Good as a supplement, NOT as a text. Varian - Excellent for basic producer/consumer theory. The best in the business for these topics. Should be the 'core' book for the first semester of the Micro sequence. Weak in game theory. The only text that can be realistically utilized for self-study. MWG - Great for the mathematics of game theory. Currently the best source (of these four books) of material on decision-making under uncertainty (though it is still fairly wretched in this regard). Most complete of the texts. Should be used as the 'core' book in the second semester of the first-year micro sequence. Terrible for producer/consumer theory (unnecessarily and insanely mathematical and terse on these topics). I keep this text handy, as I deal with game theory in my research. Reny/Jehle - Supplementary text at best. Second-best to Varian for producer/consumer theory. The worst at game theory. The best thing about it is the mathematical review chapter. I rarely look at it. If you are going to go through the first year of micro sequence, make sure you have Varian and MWG (even if, for some reason, they are not used as your text(s)). The others are just supplements.
Rating:
Summary: cannot do without it
Review: This book has gained so much popularity and has been subject to reviews/critiques for quite a long time already. It is now used as a standard textbook/reference for a graduate level microeconomics course in almost any university around the world. One simply cannot do without this book since it contains so much stuff inside, not only microeconomics. As the other reviewers have noted, for someone to be able to learn from this book, he/she should have first studied mathematics/mathematical economics at the level of Sydsaeter/Hammond, Chiang, and Simon/Blume (the authors are arranged according to the level of mathematics in their corresponding textbooks). For economics majors who want to pursue a Masters Degree in economics, it would be better to study mathematics/mathematical economics (perhaps on your own) as early as possible (say, at the start of your sophomore year), so that you would not have a difficult time at the Master's Level. One more thing I'd like to add is that the solutions manual written by Chiaki Hara et al. is available at Oxford University Press, although I do not know if it is sold to everyone or only to instructors.
Rating:
Summary: Good for Ph.D Micro
Review: It is the best Ph.D Microeconomic Theory textbook today, if an instructor wants to use a textbook for its convenience. Personally, I like its mathematical rigor and material coverage. However, it needs to be substantially enhanced. It is falling behind many new developments in Microeconomics. For example, the coverage on contracts and incentives is very poor. The coverage on IO is weak. It may consider to include some materials from organization theory. The design of the book is very poor. It is too big and too heavy. Such a big and heavy stuff is only welcome in an exercise room. It is just too hard to carry around. Some students slit the book into a few pieces, each containing a few chapters. Why not dvide it into two books, each for one semester?
Rating:
Summary: what PhD students needed
Review: I am a first-year PhD student at Uppsala University, Sweden. I used Varian's book at my master-level microeconomics, so I feel not hard to read this book. However, I think this book still benefits me quite lot, and is better than Varian's as PhD materials although Varian's Microeonomic anaylsis is also a decent one.
Rating:
Summary: Superb Compendium
Review: One of my fellow reviewers, Mr. Al Snow, makes the following point: "What you will learn is that economics is a junk science. Take one of 'fundemental assumptions' of microeconomics theory: preferences are complete. Completes means that a person knows the satisfaction s/he receives from every single bundle of goods available and will be available in the future. Introspection quickly reveals that this assumption is false, nobody has such knowledge of the world around them. In a real science a hypothesis/assumption that is proved to be false is discarded." The answer to Mr. Snow is as follows: the philosophy of logical positivism states that a theory should be judged by the accuracy of its predictions and not by the accuracy of its assumptions. In other words, even if a theory makes wrong assumptions yet predicts well (perhaps because those assumptions, although wrong, are irrelevant to the result) that theory is useful. This philosophy is, in fact, not just used in economics as Mr. Snow seems to think, but right throughout both the physical and social sciences. See, for example, John Horgan's (1997) "The End of Science". This is not meant to be disparaging to Mr. Snow. In fact, he seems to display the desire for critical thinking which economics, and academic work in general, has always needed. May I humbly suggest he reconsider his disillusionment with economics? If searching for further inspiration, one should remember that it took approximately 180 years since Adam Smith ("The Wealth of Nations",1776) first stated a version of the First Welfare Theorem (loosely paraphrasing - that individual selfishness can lead to collective good), for this to be proved axiomatically. Without the systematic thinking, and use of assumptions, displayed in MasColell et al this would still today not have occurred and Smith's conclusion would still be a mere conjecture. As for this book, it is the most complete collection of microeconomic theory ever put together. A solutions manual exists, too, put together by Chiaki Hara, Ilya Segal and Steve Tadelis. The mathematics assumed is differential calculus and set theory, which virtually any undergraduate mathematics course either takes as a prerequisite or teached in its first year. Anyone who wants to understand both the character and substance of the advances made in microeconomics over the last 50 years is strongly advised to read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Rich Mathematics, No Insight.
Review: I personally consider this book inaccessible to those who do not equip with sufficient knowledge in mathematics. You can easily find that this book covers no further insight at all than Intermediate Microeconomics by Varain, but transforms intuitive concepts into incomprehensible mathematical equations. If you're not interested in becoming a PhD in Economics, simply forget this book.
Rating:
Summary: I recommend Gravelle and Rees
Review: the quest for a good book in microeconomics continue: yet we have not seen a good book with plentiful examples and applications of microeconomic theory. my recommendation is to buy gravelle and rees, and use them as a supplementary text for this book.
| 
