The art of conversation: eliciting information from experts through multi-stage communication

We examine the strategic interaction between an informed expert and an uninformed decision maker, extending the analysis of Crawford and Sobel (Econometrica 50 (1982) 1431). We modify their model to allow for more extensive communication between the two parties and show that face-to-face communication between the expert and the uninformed decision maker followed by a written report from the expert leads to improved information transmission. In (almost) all cases, there exists an equilibrium in our modified model that ex ante Pareto dominates all of the equilibria identified by Crawford and Sobel. This remains true even if the expert's bias is so great that in their model no information would be disclosed.     

Stochastic mechanisms in settings without monetary transfers: The regular case

We analyze relative performance of stochastic and deterministic mechanisms in an environment that has been extensively studied in the literature on communication (e.g., [Vincent P. Crawford, Joel Sobel, Strategic information transmission, Econometrica 50 (6) (1982) 1431-1451]) and optimal delegation (e.g., [Bengt Holmström, On the theory of delegation, in: M. Boyer, R.E. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Bayesian Models in Economic Theory, North-Holland, 1984, pp. 115-141]): a principal-agent model with hidden information, no monetary transfers, and single-peaked preferences. We demonstrate that under the common assumption of quadratic payoffs and a certain regularity condition on the distribution of private information and the agent's bias, the optimal mechanism is deterministic. We also provide an explicit characterization of this mechanism.     

A note on cheap talk and burned money

Austen-Smith and Banks [Cheap talk and burned money, J. Econ. Theory 91(1) (2000) 1-16] study how money burning can expand the set of pure cheap talk equilibria of Crawford and Sobel [Strategic information transmission, Econometrica 50(6) (1982) 1431-1451]. I identify an error in the main Theorem of Austen-Smith and Banks, and provide a variant that preserves some of the important implications. I also prove that cheap talk can be influential with money burning if and only if it can be influential without money burning. This strengthens a result of Austen-Smith and Banks, but uncovers other errors in their analysis. Finally, an open conjecture of theirs is proved correct.     

Bicameralism and corruption

This paper studies the impact of bicameralism on the level of corruption of elected officials. The relationship between parliamentary organization and corruption is analyzed in a two-period game between legislators, citizens and a lobby group, which delivers several predictions that we empirically investigate using a panel of 35 democracies during the period 1996-2004. Assuming that legislators choose a multidimensional policy on which citizens and a lobby group have opposing interests, we show that bicameralism improves the accountability of legislators to the electorate when the same party controls the two chambers and party polarization is high, while the opposite holds if the two chambers are controlled by different parties. These predictions find strong support in our empirical analysis.     

Bargaining and inequity aversion: On the efficiency of the double auction

In a bargaining setting with asymmetrically informed, inequity-averse parties, a fully efficient mechanism (i.e., the double auction) exists if and only if compassion is strong. Less compassionate parties do not trade in the double auction in the limit of strong envy.     

Search theory,competitive equilibrium,and the Nash bargaining solution

We investigate a canonical search-theoretic model without entry. Two agents are randomly matched with a long side being rationed. The matched agents face a pair of randomly drawn non-transferable payoffs, and then choose whether or not to form a partnership subject to a small probability of exogenous break down. As this probability and friction vanish, the Nash bargaining solution emerges as the unique undominated strategy equilibrium outcome if the mass of each party is the same. If the size of one party is larger than the other, the short side extracts the entire surplus, a sharp contrast to Rubinstein and Wolinsky (1985) [16].     

When mandatory disclosure hurts: Expert advice and conflicting interests

We study the quality of advice that an informed and biased expert gives to an uninformed decision maker. We compare two scenarios: mandatory disclosure of the bias and nondisclosure, where information about the bias can only be revealed through cheap-talk. We find that in many scenarios nondisclosure allows for higher welfare for both parties. Hiding the bias allows for more precise communication for the more biased type and, if different types are biased in different directions, may allow for the same for the less biased type. We identify contexts where equilibrium revelation allows but mandatory disclosure prevents meaningful communication.     

Economic Diplomacy

We study bilateral conflicts that affect the welfare of third parties, the stakeholders. The conflict takes the form of a war of attrition and intervention is modeled as the possibility that the stakeholder “aids” the agreement with transfers to the contenders. We characterize the optimal policy when the stakeholder limits its intervention to a unilateral commitment to compensate the contenders if the conflict is resolved, and show that if contenders must be treated equally after agreement, then the optimal policy cannot eliminate the delay in resolving the conflict, and intervention is only advisable when the stakes are high enough. Economic diplomacy is modeled as a three‐player game where the stakeholder is actively involved in the negotiation where transfers are discussed simultaneously with a settlement for the conflict. We prove that, provided that none of the parties involved is too impatient, diplomacy benefits the third party in all conflicts.     

Coase theorem, complexity and transaction costs

This paper, by introducing complexity considerations, provides a dynamic foundation for the Coase theorem and highlights the role of transaction costs in generating inefficient bargaining/negotiation outcomes. We show, when the players have a preference for less complex strategies, the Coase theorem holds in negotiation models with repeated surplus and endogenous disagreement payoffs if and only if there are no transaction costs. Specifically, complexity considerations select only efficient equilibria in these models without transaction costs while every equilibrium induces perpetual disagreement and inefficiency with transaction costs. We also show the latter is true in the Rubinstein bargaining model with transaction costs.     

OPTIMAL ARBITRATION

We study common arbitration rules for disputes of two privately informed parties, final offer and conventional arbitration. Conventional arbitration is shown to be an optimal arbitration rule in environments with transferable utility, while final offer arbitration is optimal if utility is nontransferable and the parties’ interests are not too aligned. These results explain the prevalence of both arbitration rules in practice.     

THIRD PARTIES, INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND MONITORING INCENTIVES

Within an incomplete contract setting, the paper analyses the role of third parties in ameliorating incentive problems arising in the context of financial contracts with costly verification and lender's bargaining power. Contrary to the findings of the bilateral lender–borrower relationship, characterised by no information revelation and possibly a breakdown of the market, it is shown that, in the presence of third parties, an optimal contract exists featuring partial information revelation and random monitoring. The importance of third parties is therefore not limited to improving efficiency, as it is when the contract offer comes from the informed party, but to ensure project realisation, and thus to ensure that the surplus that can arise from the project does not get lost.     

The role of mediation in peacemaking and peacekeeping negotiations

We develop a model of bargaining that provides a rationale for the difference in the method of negotiation, depending on the nature of the conflict. We distinguish those negotiations that take place previous to a potential conflict (peacekeeping), and negotiations inside the conflict (peacemaking). In these contexts, we study the role of a mediator who tries to achieve a certain balance between the efficiency of the agreement and the equality of the final sharing. We show that the credibility of the mediator comes from her willingness to impose delays in the negotiation, even if that implies costs. We also find how the player with a “weak” bargaining position in a conflict can strategically profit from the mediator's quest for equality. Finally, we show how the capacity of the mediator to induce a higher equality in the sharing is always higher in a peacemaking situation than in a peacekeeping one.     

Purely procedural preferences - Beyond procedural equity and reciprocity

We conduct experiments in which parties face a pair of two-player pie-splitting procedures. Parties submit their strategy in each, their beliefs about their opponent's choices, and are also asked whether they prefer one procedure over the other. The procedures – a yes-no game, an ultimatum game, and a dictator game – are designed such that by all existing economic preference models, whether distributive or procedural, parties should be indifferent between them. In particular, the procedures should yield the same outcomes, the same expected outcomes and carry the same information on parties' intentions. At the same time, the procedures differ in the way they distribute decision and information rights across players, and also in their complexity and efficiency. Experimentally, parties do indeed still reveal preferences over the procedures at hand. To explore why this happens, we elicit individuals' simplicity and efficiency ratings of the procedures, and also the degree by which individuals invoke the equality of basic rights and liberties in their moral judgement – an ethical criterion not yet captured by any preference model. The preferences we find link to this data. We explore formalizations for such preferences.     

Incomplete information and singleton cores in matching markets

We study ordinal Bayesian Nash equilibria of stable mechanisms in centralized matching markets under incomplete information. We show that truth-telling is an ordinal Bayesian Nash equilibrium of the revelation game induced by a common belief and a stable mechanism if and only if all the profiles in the support of the common belief have singleton cores. Our result matches the observations of Roth and Peranson [The redesign of the matching market for American physicians: some engineering aspects of economic design, Amer. Econ. Rev. 89 (1999) 748-780] in the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) in the United States: (i) the cores of the profiles submitted to the clearinghouse are small and (ii) while truth-telling is not a dominant strategy most participants in the NRMP truthfully reveal their preferences.     

Bargaining with revoking costs

A simple two stage bilateral bargaining game is analyzed. The players simultaneously demand shares of a unit size pie. If the demands add up to more than one, the players simultaneously choose whether to stick to their demand or accept the other?s offer. While both parties sticking to their offers leads to an impasse, accepting a lower share than the original demand is costly for each party. The set of pure strategy subgame perfect equilibria of the game is characterized for continuously differentiable payoff and cost functions, strictly increasing in the pie share and the amount conceded, respectively. Higher cost functions are shown to improve bargaining power. The limit equilibrium prediction of the model, as the cost functions are made arbitrarily high, selects a unique equilibrium in the Nash Demand Game that corresponds to a Proportional Bargaining Solution of Kalai (1977).     

On two competing mechanisms for priority-based allocation problems

We consider the priority-based allocation problem: there is a set of indivisible objects with multiple supplies (e.g., schools with seats) and a set of agents (e.g., students) with priorities over objects (e.g., proximity of residence area). We study two well-known and competing mechanisms. The agent-optimal stable mechanism (AOSM) allots objects via the deferred acceptance algorithm. The top trading cycles mechanism (TTCM) allots objects via Gale's top trading cycles algorithm. We show that the two mechanisms are equivalent, or TTCM is fair (i.e., respects agents’ priorities), or resource monotonic, or population monotonic, if and only if the priority structure is acyclic. Furthermore, if AOSM fails to be efficient (consistent) for a problem, TTCM also fails to be fair (consistent) for it. However, the converse is not necessarily true.     

Negotiation versus consultation in the development of a regulation

Under negotiated regulation, stakeholders are invited to reach an agreement on a regulatory innovation. This approach might be harmful, because potential improvements might be blocked. However, negotiation can also be beneficial—eliciting information about how to improve regulations. Three reasons are identified. First, a participant might hesitate to provide information, unless she can prevent that information being used against her interests. Second, negotiation provides stronger incentives than consultation does, to suggest innovations that primarily benefit parties other than oneself. Third, if uninformed stakeholders can reduce the no-information payoff of informed parties, those parties lose the incentive to strategically withhold information.      

Bargaining with Voluntary Transmission of Private Information: Does the Use of Final Offer Arbitration Impede Settlement?

We identify two features of final offer arbitration (FOA) whichmay impede settlement in a bargaining game where asymmetricinformation drives the failure to settle. First, under FOA theinformed party has an incentive to conceal private informationabout the expected outcome in arbitration from his bargainingpartner. Revealing this information allows the previously uninformedparty to submit a more advantageous offer to the arbitratorto the detriment of the informed party. Second, in a two-typemodel, the uninformed player may choose to arbitrate all cases,a result which never occurs in a simple litigation game. Eachplayer's offer directly affects the outcome of arbitration underFOA, and it is this feature that generates impediments to settlementthat are not observed in a simple litigation game. Both impedimentsto settlement are removed if bargaining is allowed to take placeafter potentially binding offers have been submitted to thearbitrator.     

Two-sided matching with interdependent values

We introduce and study two-sided matching with incomplete information and interdependent valuations on one side of the market. An example of such a setting is a matching market between colleges and students in which colleges receive partially informative signals about students. Stability in such markets depends on the amount of information about matchings available to colleges. When colleges observe the entire matching, a stable matching mechanism does not generally exist. When colleges observe only their own matches, a stable mechanism exists if students have identical preferences over colleges, but may not exist if students have different preferences.     

Transfer Pricing and Hold-Ups in Supply Chains

Abstract. We reconsider the hold‐up problem under symmetric information when more than two parties form a ‘supply chain’. The parties are assumed to renegotiate bilaterally and sequentially. Potential trade distortions then arise in addition to the usual investment problem. Following Edlin and Reichelstein (1995, 1996), we consider fixed‐quantity contracts. First‐best allocations are shown to be attainable if the parties are able to commit to a ‘forced‐compliance’ regime where a central office monitors the consistency of the bilateral renegotiations.