Coalition Formation and Potential Games

In this paper we study the formation of coalition structures in situations described by a cooperative game. Players choose independently which coalition they want to join. The payoffs to the players are determined by an allocation rule on the underlying game and the coalition structure that results from the strategies of the players according to some formation rule. We study two well-known coalition structure formation rules and show that for both formation rules there exists a unique component-efficient allocation rule that results in a potential game. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C71, C72.     

Voluntarily separable repeated Prisonerʼs Dilemma with reference letters

We consider the voluntarily separable repeated Prisoner?s Dilemma model in which players randomly meet and form pairs to repeatedly play Prisoner?s Dilemma only by mutual agreement. While the literature has dealt with the case of no information flow across partnerships, we consider the case in which players can issue a “reference letter” to verify at least that the partnership entered the cooperation phase. We show that such reference letters can be voluntarily provided by the partners even at some cost, and that the sheer existence of a letter shortens the trust-building periods and thus improves social efficiency.     

Axiomatizations of two types of Shapley values for games on union closed systems

A situation in which a finite set of players can obtain certain payoffs by cooperation can be described by a cooperative game with transferable utility, or simply a TU-game. A (single-valued) solution for TU-games assigns a payoff distribution to every TU-game. A well-known solution is the Shapley value. In the literature various models of games with restricted cooperation can be found. So, instead of allowing all subsets of the player set N to form, it is assumed that the set of feasible coalitions is a subset of the power set of N. In this paper, we consider such sets of feasible coalitions that are closed under union, i.e. for any two feasible coalitions also their union is feasible. We consider and axiomatize two solutions or rules for these games that generalize the Shapley value: one is obtained as the conjunctive permission value using a corresponding superior graph, the other is defined as the Shapley value of a modified game similar as the Myerson value for games with limited communication.     

Marriage, Divorce and Reciprocity-based Cooperation

This paper considers partnership formation, partnership dissolution and reciprocity‐based cooperation by couples in the form of voluntary transfers to smooth consumption. While risk sharing is one benefit of having a partner, it is also limited by the (endogenous) risk of separation. The equilibrium formation and dissolution of partnerships are determined simultaneously with cooperative behavior. Publicly provided earnings insurance is shown to increase the “turnover” rate in the marriage market as well as to reduce the steady‐state marriage rate and the implicit financial cooperation between partners.     

Farsightedness in a Coalitional Great Fish War

We explore the implications of the farsightedness assumption on the conjectures of players in a coalitional Great Fish War model with symmetric players, derived from the seminal model of Levhari and Mirman (Bell J Econ 11:649–661, 1980). The farsightedness assumption for players in a coalitional game acknowledges the fact that a deviation from a single player will lead to the formation of a new coalition structure as the result of possibly successive moves of her rivals in order to improve their payoffs. It departs from mainstream game theory in that it relies on the so-called rational conjectures, as opposed to the traditional Nash conjectures formed by players on the behavior of their rivals. For values of the biological parameter and the discount factor more plausible than the ones used in the current literature, the farsightedness assumption predicts a wide scope for cooperation in non-trivial coalitions, sustained by credible threats of successive deviations that defeat the shortsighted payoff of any prospective deviator. Compliance or deterrence of deviations may also be addressed by acknowledging that information on the fish stock or on the catch policies actually implemented may be available only with a delay (dynamic farsightedness). In that case, the requirements are stronger and the sizes and number of possible farsighted stable coalitions are different. In the sequential move version, which could mimic some characteristics of fishery models, the results are not less appealing, even if the dominant player or dominant coalition with first move advantage assumption provides a case for cooperation with the traditional Nash conjectures.     

A Risk‐Dominant Allocation: Maximizing Coalition Stability

This paper presents a rule to allocate a coalition’s worth for superadditive games with positive externalities. The allocation rule awards each member their outside payoff, plus an equal share of the surplus. The resulting allocation maximizes coalition stability. Stable coalitions are Strong Nash equilibria since no subset of members has an incentive to leave. Similarly, no subset of non‐members has an incentive to join a stable coalition if the game is concave in this region. The allocation is risk‐dominant. All stable coalitions are robust to the maximum probability of 50% that players’ deviate from their individual best‐responses. The paper compares the allocation to the Shapley value and the Nash bargaining solution, and illustrates why these traditional rules result in small coalitions when applied to issues such as international environmental agreements.     

Lexicographic composition of simple games

Certain voting bodies can be modeled as a simple game where a coalition's winning depends on whether it wins, blocks or loses in two smaller simple games. There are essentially five such ways to combine two proper games into a proper game. The most decisive is the lexicographic rule, where a coalition must either win in G₁, or block in G₁ and win in G₂. When two isomorphic games are combined lexicographically, a given role for a player confers equal or more power when held in the first game than the second, if power is assessed by any semi-value. A game is lexicographically separable when the players of the two components partition the whole set. Games with veto players are not separable, and games of two or more players with identical roles are separable only if decisive. Some separable games are egalitarian in that they give players identical roles.     

Perfect Information and Potential Games

Games with perfect information giving rise to potential normal forms are described. For agent normal forms, a potential is defined such that a strategy profile is a maximizer for the potential if and only if it is a subgame perfect equilibrium. In the normal form of any game with perfect information, every better reply path where the players do not change their choices at irrelevant nodes leads to an equilibrium. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Number: C72.     

Coordination and the Provision of Discrete Public Goods by Correlated Equilibria

The strategic analysis of the private provision of a discrete public good has shown the existence of multiple Nash equilibria with the efficient number of players voluntarily contributing. However the coordination issue is left unexplained by this literature. The experimental evidence shows that communication among players is helpful in achieving cooperation. We claim that, from the theoretical point of view, this is equivalent to playing correlated equilibria in an extended public good game with communication, modeled as Chicken. We characterize such equilibria as feasible coordination mechanisms to achieve public goods provision in the general contribution game. We further introduce a second kind of game characterized by payoff externalities that may persist after the minimal threshold of contributors is achieved. While it is easy to show the existence of Pareto efficient correlated equilibria in the first game, in the second one players face incentive problems such that a first best cannot always be an equilibrium. Nevertheless there exist correlated equilibria that can qualify as incentive efficient mechanisms, once free riding is seen as a moral hazard issue. Finally, with an example, we discuss the impact of coalition formation in our framework.     

The Design and Performance of Sharing Rules for a Partnership in Continuous Time

We study repeated partnerships with imperfect monitoring and risk neutrality. The interval between the partners' decisions, the delay, is given but can be arbitrarily small. Each stage-game's output is Gaussian, with mean and variance depending on the partners' actions, making the sequence of outcomes a discretization of a diffusion. A sharing rule is efficient if there is an equilibrium of the corresponding game whose outcomes are Pareto efficient; it is stable if these equilibria approach a limit as the delay approaches zero. We characterize partnerships for which there exist stable, efficient sharing rules, and describe the corresponding equilibria.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: C73, D2, D82.     

Reciprocity Game

This paper shows that reciprocity comes from the desire to cooperate in finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma game. Before playing the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma game, players choose the reciprocity level and commit to it, and the reciprocity level is public information. There are T equilibria if the prisoner's dilemma game is repeated for T periods, and each equilibrium is associated with different levels of cooperation. Further, if players choose their reciprocity levels sequentially, then the most cooperative equilibrium will be the unique equilibrium. However, reciprocity does not matter for the one‐period game and the infinitely repeated game.     

Infinite horizon common interest games with perfect information

We consider infinite horizon common interest games with perfect information. A game is a K-coordination game if each player can decrease other players' payoffs by at most K times his own cost of punishment. The number K represents the degree of commonality of payoffs among the players. The smaller K is, the more interest the players share. A K-coordination game tapers off if the greatest payoff variation conditional on the first t periods of an efficient history converges to 0 at a rate faster than K^−t as t→∞. We show that every subgame perfect equilibrium outcome is efficient in any tapering-off game with perfect information. Applications include asynchronously repeated games, repeated games of extensive form games, asymptotically finite horizon games, and asymptotically pure coordination games.     

Sequential communication with ex post participation constraints

This paper examines an informed principal-agent game with ex post participation constraints for the agent. It shows that the players do not lose by communicating in turn among themselves rather than simultaneously if and only if the principal communicates first. It then considers every Bayesian incentive compatible allocation rules that assign non-negative payoffs for one player in a bilateral asymmetric information framework. It provides necessary and sufficient conditions for sequential communication to be as efficient as simultaneous communication in implementing these allocation rules when the player with unbounded payoffs moves first.     

Coalitional Colonel Blotto Games with Application to the Economics of Alliances

In Borel’s Colonel Blotto game two players simultaneously allocate their respective endowments of a resource across n battlefields, the higher allocation wins each battlefield, and players maximize the number of battlefields won. Here we examine two players who may form an alliance before separately competing in two disjoint Colonel Blotto games against a common adversary. Despite a lack of common interests, unilateral transfers—in a direction consistent with the exploitation hypothesis—arise for a range of parameter configurations. Such transfers alter the adversary’s strategy and the combination of the direct and strategic effects benefits both allies.     

A Pie Allocation Among Sharing Groups

This paper deals with a pie allocation problem to users, who are divided intosharing groups, that are not necessarily disjoint. The pie is allocated among the groups, rather than the users. The portion of a sharing group is a public good for its members, that is, all of them can enjoy it. A non-cooperative game for allocating the pie and a special equilibrium outcome,strongly disappointment-free allocation, are defined. We prove the existence of a unique such allocation and show that it coincides with the Nash solution of the related bargaining problem.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: C70, C71, C72 and C78.     

Reciprocity and Cooperation in Repeated Coordination Games: The Principled-Player Approach

Two long-lived players play a repeated coordination game. I show the restrictions on players' beliefs which imply that cooperation is optimal play. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Number: D83.     

PEER TRANSPARENCY IN TEAMS: DOES IT HELP OR HINDER INCENTIVES?*

In a joint project involving two players of a two‐round effort investment game with complementary efforts, transparency, by allowing players to observe each other’s efforts, achieves at least as much, and sometimes more, collective and individual efforts relative to a nontransparent environment. Without transparency multiple equilibria can arise, and transparency eliminates the inferior equilibria. When full cooperation arises only under transparency, it occurs gradually: No worker sinks in the maximum amount of effort in the first round, preferring instead to smooth out contributions over time. If the players’ efforts are substitutes, transparency makes no difference to equilibrium efforts.     

ON THE NEUTRALITY OF COALITION FORMATION IN A PURE BARGAINING PROBLEM*

We consider the sequential bargaining game à la Stahl–Binmore–Rubinstein with random proposers, juxtaposing an ex ante coalition formation stage to their bargaining game. On the basis of the expected outcomes in the negotiation over how to split a dollar, players can form coalitions in a sequential manner, within each of which they can redistribute their payoffs. It turns out that the grand coalition does form, and that each player receives his discounted expected payoff, which is obtained by playing as a single player in the negotiation, although there could be many equilibria in the bargaining stage.     

Reciprocal relationships and mechanism design

We study an incomplete information game in which players can coordinate their actions by contracting among themselves. We model this relationship as a reciprocal contracting procedure where each player has the ability to make commitments contingent on the other players' commitments. We differ from the rest of the literature on reciprocal contracting by assuming that punishments cannot be enforced in the event that cooperation breaks down. We fully characterize the outcomes that can be supported as perfect Bayesian equilibrium outcomes in such an environment. We use our characterization to show that the set of supportable outcomes with reciprocal contracting is larger than the set of outcomes available in a centralized mechanism design environment in which the mechanism designer is constrained by his inability to enforce punishments against non‐participants. The difference stems from the players' ability in our contracting game to convey partial information about their types at the time they offer contracts. We discuss the implications of our analysis for modelling collusion between multiple agents interacting with the same principal.     

On the Least Core and the Mas-Colell Bargaining Set

We show that the least core of a TU coalitional game with a finite set of players is contained in the Mas-Colell bargaining set. This result is extended to games with a measurable space of players in which the worth of the grand coalition is at least that of any other coalition in the game. As a consequence, we obtain an existence theorem for the Mas-Colell bargaining set in TU games with a measurable space of players. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Number: C71.