Focal points and bargaining

This is a contribution to the growing experimental literature on how trial-and-error adjustment processes can establish a convention for coordination on an equilibrium in a game. A simple bargaining game introduced by Nash is used for this purpose. Subjects are conditioned in different treatments to use four different bargaining solutions. The stability of the conditioning is then studied as the bargaining game is played over an extended period. The data obtained is unusually sharp. In the long run, the median subject behaves as though optimizing often down to a fraction of a penny. The results are therefore not supportive of the view that strategic considerations in such situations can be neglected in favor of a study of fairness norms. Indeed, the equilibrium actually achieved in a session turns out to be a very good predictor of what the median subject says is “fair” in the game after play is over.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45837/1/182_2005_Article_BF01240133.pd

original papers : Treasury auctions: Uniform or discriminatory?

There has been much discussion of the relative merits of selling government bonds using a uniform-price auction rather than the traditional discriminatory-price auction. Arguments in favor of the former have won the day in respect of the newly instituted auctions of index-linked bonds in the USA and UK. This short paper assesses the evidence and concludes that the advantages of uniform-price auctions have been oversold.Auctions, government bond markets, uniform-price auctions, discriminatory-price auctions

The role of strategic uncertainty in games: An experimental study of cheap talk and contracts in the Nash demand game

We utilise results from a human-subjects experiment to examine the connection between strategic uncertainty and outcomes in games. Our basic game is a Nash demand game where one player has an outside option available. A "chat" treatment allows bargainers to send cheap-talk messages prior to playing the basic game, and in a "contracts" treatment, they can additionally propose and accept binding contracts. We propose that strategic uncertainty comprises at least two facets: "coordination-type", which is lower in the chat game than in the basic game, and "rationality-type", which is lower in the contracts game than in the chat game. We find that both types of strategic uncertainty impact bargaining outcomes: moving from the basic game to the chat game, and thence to contracts, improves several aspects of outcomes, such as higher efficiency, less opting out and less under-demanding. Other results include a treatment effect on the types of agreements that are reached.Strategic uncertainty Nash bargaining Unstructured bargaining Outside option Cheap talk Binding agreements Coase theorem