Preemption in Capacity and Price Determination - A Study of Endogenous Timing of Decisions for Homogeneous Markets

Endogenous timing can help to derive the time structure of decision making instead of assuming it as exogenously given. In our study we consider a homogeneous market where, like in the model of Kreps and Scheinkman (1983), sellers determine "sales capacities" before prices. Sellers must serve customers, but at higher costs when demand exceeds "capacitiy". Our model allows for preemption in "capacity" as well as in price determination. Since preemption means to decide before the random choice of cost parameters reflecting the stochastic nature of (excess) "capacity" costs, preemptive commitments are no obviously better timing dispositions.

Bargaining and Negotiations What should experimentalists explore more thoroughly?

A long time ago most economists would have limited themselves to stating that agreements should be individually rational and efficient and that selecting a specific agreement from that set depends on bargaining and negotiation power whatever that may be. Nowadays hardly any economist will argue that way. The change has been brought about by the strategic approach to bargaining and cooperation and the parallel experimental studies of bargaining and negotiation. When arguing what should be explored more thoroughly, we will point out directions where previous efforts may have been misdirected, where importing new methods may be helpful or even needed, and where new research questions need to be asked and answered.(un)bounded rationality, (non-)cooperative game theory, bargaining and negotiation (theory and experiments)

Rules (of Bidding) to Generate Equal Stated Profits - An Axiomatic Approach -

Although one may hope to achieve equality of stated profits without enforcing it, one may not trust in such voluntary equality seeking and rather try to impose rules (of bidding) guaranteeing it. Our axiomatic approach is based on envy-free net trades according to bids which, together with the equality requirement, characterize the first-prize auction and fair division game.Auctions, Fair Division, Procedural fairness, Envy-Freeness

Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence - A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations

A general framework is described specifying how boundedly rational decision makers generate their choices. Starting from a "Master Module" which keeps an inventory of previously successful and unsuccessful routines several submodules can be called forth which either allow one to adjust behavior (by "Learning Module" and "Adaptation Procedure") or to generate new decision routines (by applying "New Problem Solver"). Our admittedly bold attempt is loosely related to some stylized experimental results.

On ultimatum bargaining experiments: A personal review

Bargaining

Procedurally Fair Provision of Public Projects An axiomatic characterization

Unanimous voting as the fundamental procedural source of political legitimacy grants veto power to each individual. We present an axiomatic characterization of a class of bidding processes to spell out the underlying egalitarian values for collective projects of a "productive state". At heart of such procedures is the determination of payments for all possible bid vectors such that equal "profits" according to bids emerge. Along with other intuitive requirements this characterizes procedurally fair bidding rules for advantageous projects of a collectivity.Unanimity in Collective Decision Making, Buchanan, Wicksell

Why do People Veto? An Experimental Analysis of the Valuation and the Consequences of Varying Degrees of Veto Power

By vetoing one questions mutually efficient agreements. On the other hand the threat of vetoing may prevent exploitation. Based on a generalization of ultimatum bargaining (Suleiman, 1996) we first elicit the responders' certainty equivalents for three different degrees of veto power. Afterwards the corresponding bargaining rule is implemented. The experimental data reveal that proposers are afraid of more veto power but that responders only care for commanding veto power at all, not for its strength.

Indirect Evolution versus Strategic Delegation: A Comparison of Two Approaches to Explaining Economic Institutions

Two major methods of explaining economic institutions, namely by strategic choices or through (indirect) evolution, are compared for the case of a homogenous quadratic duopoly market. Sellers either can provide incentives for agents to care for sales, or evolve as sellers who care for sales in addition to profits. The two approaches are conceptually quite different, yet similar in the sense that both allow certain kinds of commitment. We show that when the two models are set up in intuitively comparable ways strategic delegation does not change the market results as compared to the usual duopoly solution, while indirect evolution causes a more competitive behavior. Thus the case at hand underscores the differences between the two approaches in explaining economic institutions.Indirect evolution; strategic delgation; commitment; duopoly markets; agency theory

The Provision of Public Goods with Positive Group Interdependencies

This article examines the nature of human behavior in a nested social dilemma referred to as the Spillover Game. Players are divided into two groups with positive production interdependencies. Based on theoretically derived opportunistic, local, and global optima, our experimental results demonstrate the importance of in-group beneficiaries over global efficiency. We find that the observed behavior is primarily determined by an imperfect conditional cooperation that prioritizes local level feedback. Results stress the importance of building strong local level commitment to encourage the provision of public goods with positive externalities.Public good, experiment, groups, Spillover Game, social dilemma

Effects of exclusion on social preferences

In three party ultimatum games the proposer can first decide whether to exclude one responder, what increases the available pie. The experiments control for intentionality of exclusion and veto power of the third party. We do not find evidence for indirect reciprocity of the remaining responder after the exclusion of the other. Similarly, not excluding the second responder is only insignificantly reciprocated by it. Overall, we find little evidence that intentional exclusion has substantial effects on behavior.Exclusion, bargaining, ultimatum game, social preferences, experiment