1935 1938 1948 1950 1951 1953 1954 1956 1957 1959 1961 1963 1964 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1982 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007
Common Agency [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 31-01-2007B. Douglas Bernheim, Michael D. Whinston Econometrica. 1986. Vol. 54. No. 4. P. 923-942.
We extend the principal-agent framework with risk-neutral principals to situations in which several principals simultaneously and independently attempt to influence a common agent. We show that implementation is, in the aggregate, always efficient (cost-minimizing), and that noncooperative behavior induces an efficient (potentially second-best) action choice if and only if collusion among the principals would implement the first-best action at the first-best level of cost. We also investigate the existence of equilibria, the distribution of net rewards among principals, the characteristics of actions chosen in inefficient equilibria, and potential institutional remedies for welfare losses induced by noncooperative behavior.
Опубликовано на портале: 30-01-2007Drew Fudenberg, Eric S. Maskin Econometrica. 1986. Vol. 54. No. 3. P. 533-554.
When either there are only two players or a "full dimensionality" condition holds, any individually rational payoff vector of a one-shot game of complete information can arise in a perfect equilibrium of the infinitely-repeated game if players are sufficiently patient. In contrast to earlier work, mixed strategies are allowed in determining the individually rational payoffs (even when only realized actions are observable). Any individually rational payoffs of a one-shot game can be approximated by sequential equilibrium payoffs of a long but finite game of incomplete information, where players' payoffs are almost certainly as in the one-shot game.
Опубликовано на портале: 24-01-2007Jean-François Mertens, Elon Kohlberg Econometrica. 1986. Vol. 54. No. 5. P. 1003-1037.
A basic problem in the theory of noncooperative games is the following: which Nash equilibria are strategically stable, i.e. self-enforcing, and does every game have a strategically stable equilibrium? We list three conditions which seem necessary for strategic stability - backwards induction, iterated dominance, and invariance - and define a set-valued equilibrium concept that satisfies all three of them. We prove that every game has at least one such equilibrium set. Also, we show that the departure from the usual notion of single-valued equilibrium is relatively minor, because the sets reduce to points in all generic games.