Efficiency and Renegotiation in Repeated Games
AbstractThis paper introduces a general framework for the discussion of renegotiation in repeated games, provides a new concept of "renegotiation proof" equilibrium, and shows how this model clarifies and unifies existing work in this area. The procedure involves restricting axiomatically the class of agreements which may be considered admissible, thus taking incentives into consideration at the beginning of the game when an agreement is selected. We define a preference ordering on agreements, so that given the set of agreements which satisfy the axioms imposed, we may select a "best" agreement. We use this framework to introduce a new concept of renegotiation proofness -- recursive efficiency -- and apply it to the efficiency wage model.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Queen's University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 752.
Length: 28 pages
Date of creation: 1989
Date of revision:
game theory ; economic models ; economic equilibrium;
Other versions of this item:
- MacLeod, B.W. & Bergin, J., 1991. "Efficiency and Renegotiation in Repeated Games," Cahiers de recherche 9118, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
- MacLeod, B.W. & Bergin, J., 1991. "Efficiency and Renegotiation in Repeated Games," Cahiers de recherche 9118, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
- Bergin, J. & Macleod, B., 1989. "Eficiency And Renegotiation In Repeated Games," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 121-89, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark Babcock).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.