Aeory of Disagreement in Repeated Games with Bargaining
نویسنده
چکیده
is paper proposes a new approach to the problem of equilibrium selection in repeated games with transfers, by supposing that in each period the players bargain over how to play. Although the bargaining phase is cheap talk (which follows a generalized alternating-offer protocol), sharp predictions arise from three axioms. Two axioms allow the players to meaningfully discuss whether to deviate from their plan; the third embodies a “theory of disagreement”—that play under disagreement should not vary with the manner in which bargaining broke down. Equilibria satisfying these axioms exist for all discount factors and are simple to construct, and all equilibria attain the same joint value. Optimal play under agreement generally requires suboptimal play under disagreement. Whether patient players attain efciency depends on both the stage game and the bargaining power that they derive from the details of the bargaining protocol. e theory extends naturally to games with imperfect public monitoring and heterogeneous discount factors, and yields new insights into classic relational contracting questions. JEL Classi cations: C71 , C72 , C73 , C78 *We thank Sylvain Chassang, Marina Halac, Jin Li, Larry Samuelson, and Garey Ramey for valuable comments and suggestions, along with seminar participants at Carlo Alberto, Columbia, Duke-Fuqua, ETH Zurich, Florida International, IFPR, Penn, Santa Fe Institute, Toronto, UCLA, UCSD, UC Davis, USC, USC-Marshall, Western Ontario, and Yale; and conference participants at the GTS 3rdWorld Congress, SWET 2008, the 2008 Stony BrookWorkshops, the 2009 NBER Organizational Economics Working Group, and NAWMES 2011. Jacob Johnson, Jong-Myun Moon, and Aniela Pietrasz provided excellent research assistance. Miller thanks Yale and the Cowles Foundation for hospitality and nancial support, and Partha Dasgupta for inspiration to pursue this topic. Watson thanks NSF (SES-0095207), NOAA Fisheries Service, and the Cowles Foundation at Yale for hospitality and nancial support.
منابع مشابه
Efficiency in Negotiation: Complexity and Costly Bargaining∗
Even with complete information, two-person bargaining can generate a large number of equilibria, involving disagreements and inefficiencies, in (i) negotiation games where disagreement payoffs are endogenously determined (Busch and Wen [4]) and (ii) costly bargaining games where there are transaction/participation costs (Anderlini and Felli [2]). We show that when the players have (at the margi...
متن کاملA Theory of Disagreement in Repeated Games with Bargaining
This paper proposes a new approach to equilibrium selection in repeated games with transfers, supposing that in each period the players bargain over how to play. Although the bargaining phase is cheap talk (following a generalized alternating-offer protocol), sharp predictions arise from three axioms. Two axioms allow the players to meaningfully discuss whether to deviate from their plan; the t...
متن کاملTransfer of Bargaining Power Sources in Oil Trade Games
Bargaining Power is one of the important issues in oil trade negotiations. In this paper two effective factors in bargaining power i.e. patient time to deal and outside options of each player have been considered. The necessary relations for exchange of sources in negotiation have been derived.
متن کاملBargaining with endogenous disagreement: The extended Kalai-Smorodinsky solution
Following Vartiainen (2007) we consider bargaining problems in which no exogenous disagreement outcome is given. A bargaining solution assigns a pair of outcomes to such a problem, namely a compromise outcome and a disagreement outcome: the disagreement outcome may serve as a reference point for the compromise outcome, but other interpretations are given as well. For this framework we propose a...
متن کاملA Theory of Disagreement in Repeated Games with Renegotiation
This paper develops the concept of contractual equilibrium for repeated games with transferable utility, whereby the players negotiate cooperatively over their continuation strategies at the start of each period. Players may disagree in the negotiation phase, and continuation play may be suboptimal under disagreement. Under agreement, play is jointly optimal in the continuation game, and the pl...
متن کامل