An official website of the United States government
A proposer requires a veto player’s approval to change a status quo. Proposer is uncertain about Vetoer’s preferences. We show that Vetoer is typically given a non-singleton menu, or delegation set, of options to pick from. The optimal set balances the extent of compromise with the risk of a veto. We identify conditions for certain delegation sets to emerge, including “full delegation”: Vetoer can choose any action between the status quo and Proposer’s ideal action. By contrast to expertise-based delegation, Proposer gives less discretion to Vetoer when their preferences are more (likely to be) aligned. (JEL D72, D82)
more »
« less
Sequential Veto Bargaining With Incomplete Information
We study sequential bargaining between a proposer and a veto player. Both have single‐peaked preferences, but the proposer is uncertain about the veto player's ideal point. The proposer cannot commit to future proposals. When players are patient, there can be equilibria with Coasian dynamics: the veto player's private information can largely nullify proposer's bargaining power. Our main result, however, is that under some conditions there also are equilibria in which the proposer obtains the high payoff that he would with commitment power. The driving force is that the veto player's single‐peaked preferences give the proposer an option to “leapfrog,” that is, to secure agreement from only low‐surplus types early on to credibly extract surplus from high types later. Methodologically, we exploit the connection between sequential bargaining and static mechanism design.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10438487
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Econometrica
- Volume:
- 91
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 0012-9682
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1527 to 1562
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
A seller trades withqout ofnbuyers who have valuationsa1 ≥ a2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ an > 0 via sequential bilateral bargaining. Whenq < n, buyer payoffs vary across equilibria in the patient limit, but seller payoffs do not, and converge to maxl≤q+1[(a1+a2+⋯+al−1)/2+al+1+⋯+aq+1]. Ifl*is the (generically unique) maximizer of this optimization problem, then each buyeri < l*trades with probability 1 at the fair priceai/2, while buyersi ≥ l*are excluded from trade with positive probability. Bargaining with buyers who face the threat of exclusion is driven by asequential outside option principle: the seller can sequentially exercise the outside option of trading with the extra marginal buyerq + 1, then with the new extra marginal buyerq, and so on, extracting full surplus from each buyer in this sequence and enhancing the outside option at every stage. A seller who can serve all buyers (q = n) may benefit from creating scarcity by committing to exclude some remaining buyers as negotiations proceed. Anoptimal exclusion commitment, within a general class, excludes a single buyer but maintains flexibility about which buyer is excluded. Results apply symmetrically to a buyer bargaining with multiple sellers.more » « less
-
There has been much work on exhibiting mechanisms that implement various bargaining solutions, in particular, the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution \cite{moulin1984implementing} and the Nash Bargaining solution. Another well-known and axiomatically well-studied solution is the lexicographic maxmin solution. However, there is no mechanism known for its implementation. To fill this gap, we construct a mechanism that implements the lexicographic maxmin solution as the unique subgame perfect equilibrium outcome in the n-player setting. As is standard in the literature on implementation of bargaining solutions, we use the assumption that any player can grab the entire surplus. Our mechanism consists of a binary game tree, with each node corresponding to a subgame where the players are allowed to choose between two outcomes. We characterize novel combinatorial properties of the lexicographic maxmin solution which are crucial to the design of our mechanism.more » « less
-
We extend Kreps and Wilson's concept of sequential equilibrium to games with infinite sets of signals and actions. A strategy profile is a conditional ε ‐equilibrium if, for any of a player's positive probability signal events, his conditional expected utility is within ε of the best that he can achieve by deviating. With topologies on action sets, a conditional ε ‐equilibrium is full if strategies give every open set of actions positive probability. Such full conditional ε ‐equilibria need not be subgame perfect, so we consider a non‐topological approach. Perfect conditional ε ‐equilibria are defined by testing conditional ε ‐rationality along nets of small perturbations of the players' strategies and of nature's probability function that, for any action and for almost any state, make this action and state eventually (in the net) always have positive probability. Every perfect conditional ε ‐equilibrium is a subgame perfect ε ‐equilibrium, and, in finite games, limits of perfect conditional ε ‐equilibria as ε → 0 are sequential equilibrium strategy profiles. But limit strategies need not exist in infinite games so we consider instead the limit distributions over outcomes. We call such outcome distributions perfect conditional equilibrium distributions and establish their existence for a large class of regular projective games. Nature's perturbations can produce equilibria that seem unintuitive and so we augment the game with a net of permissible perturbations.more » « less
-
For contractualist accounts of morality, actions are moral if they correspond to what rational or reasonable agents would agree to do, were they to negotiate explicitly. This, in turn, often depends on each party’s bargaining power, which varies with each party’s stakes in the potential agreement and available alternatives in case of disagreement. If there is an asymmetry, with one party enjoying higher bargaining power than another, this party can usually get a better deal, as often happens in real negotiations. A strong test of contractualist accounts of morality, then, is whether moral judgments do take bargaining power into account. We explore this in vive preregistered experiments (n = 3,025; U.S.-based Prolific participants). We construct scenarios depicting everyday social interactions between two parties in which one of them can perform a mutually beneficial but unpleasant action. We find that the same actions (asking the other to perform the unpleasant action or explicitly refusing to do it) are perceived as less morally appropriate when performed by the party with lower bargaining power, as compared to the party with higher bargaining power. In other words, participants tend to give more moral leeway to parties with better bargaining positions and to hold disadvantaged parties to stricter moral standards. This effect appears to depend only on the relative bargaining power of each party but not on the magnitude of the bargaining power asymmetry between them. We discuss implications for contractualist theories of moral cognition and the emergence and persistence of unfair norms and inequality.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA20658
