IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/vfsc15/112868.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentives to Acquire Information under Mandatory versus Voluntary Disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • Schweizer, Urs

Abstract

This paper compares the incentives of a party to acquire information prior to negotiating contractual terms with a second party. Two legal regimes are compared: disclosing information before negotiations start is mandatory or it remains voluntary. By assumption, information can only truthfully be disclosed but, under voluntary disclosure, the fact that no evidence was found cannot credibly be communicated. If the party that may acquire information enjoys encompassing bargaining power, the incentives to acquire information will be excessive relative to first best quite generally. Otherwise, more surprisingly, acquisition incentives turn out insufficient even under voluntary disclosure for an informational setting referred to as selfish acquisition. For another setting, referred to as cooperative acquisition, the incentives under voluntary disclosure are even lower as compared with mandatory disclosure. All results hold independently of the underlying bargaining structure and equilibrium selection as exclusive use of constraints is made that hold for equilibrium payoffs from any bargaining game.

Suggested Citation

  • Schweizer, Urs, 2015. "Incentives to Acquire Information under Mandatory versus Voluntary Disclosure," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112868, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc15:112868
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/112868/1/VfS_2015_pid_674.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin E. Hermalin, 2013. "Unobserved investment, endogenous quality, and trade," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(1), pages 33-55, March.
    2. Urs Schweizer, 2013. "Damages Regimes, Precaution Incentives, and the Intensity Principle," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 169(4), pages 567-586, December.
    3. Stephanie Lau, 2008. "Information and bargaining in the hold‐up problem," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 266-282, March.
    4. Steven Shavell, 1994. "Acquisition and Disclosure of Information Prior to Sale," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(1), pages 20-36, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kawai, Keiichi, 2015. "Reputation for quality and adverse selection," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 47-59.
    2. Rao, Neel, 2015. "General training in labor markets: Common value auctions with unobservable investment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 19-45.
    3. Dilmé, Francesc, 2019. "Pre-trade private investments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 98-119.
    4. Kawai, Keiichi, 2014. "Dynamic market for lemons with endogenous quality choice by the seller," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 152-162.
    5. Rao, Neel, 2022. "Search equilibrium with unobservable investment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 300-330.
    6. Cuihong Li, 2020. "Supplier Competition and Cost Reduction with Endogenous Information Asymmetry," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 996-1010, September.
    7. Lau, Stephanie, 2011. "Investment incentives in bilateral trading," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 538-552.
    8. Kurtis Swope & Ryan Wielgus & Pamela Schmitt & John Cadigan, 2011. "Contracts, Behavior, and the Land-assembly Problem: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments on Energy, the Environment, and Sustainability, pages 151-180, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    9. Shuo Liu & Dimitri Migrow, 2019. "Designing organizations in volatile markets," ECON - Working Papers 319, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. Konrad Stahl & Roland Strausz, 2017. "Certification and Market Transparency," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 84(4), pages 1842-1868.
    11. Alexander E. Saak, 2017. "The Value of Delegated Quality Control," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 309-335, June.
    12. Jialu Li & Meiying Yang & Wei Xing & Xuan Zhao, 2018. "Information Acquisition Behavior: An Evolutionary Game Theory Perspective," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 434-455, June.
    13. Gabriele Gratton & Richard Holden & Anton Kolotilin, 2015. "Timing Information Flows," Discussion Papers 2015-16, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    14. Emeric Henry, 2009. "Disclosure of research results: the cost of proving your honesty," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompq, Sciences Po.
    15. Yujing Xu, 2022. "Unobservable investments, trade efficiency and search frictions," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 764-799, May.
    16. Emeric Henry & Marco Ottaviani, 2019. "Research and the Approval Process: The Organization of Persuasion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(3), pages 911-955, March.
    17. Claude Fluet & Thomas Lanzi, 2021. "Cross-Examination," Working Papers of BETA 2021-40, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    18. Peter Wagner, 2023. "Seller experimentation and trade," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(2), pages 337-357, June.
    19. Tianle Song, 2022. "Quality Disclosure and Product Selection," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(2), pages 323-346, June.
    20. Emeric Henry, 2009. "Strategic Disclosure of Research Results: The Cost of Proving Your Honesty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(539), pages 1036-1064, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc15:112868. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfsocea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.