Multiperson Bargaining and Strategic Complexity
We investigate the effect of introducing costs of complexity in the a justification for stationary equilibrium strategies in the class of games where complexity costs matter. As is well-known, in this game every individually rational allocation is sustainable as a Nash equilibrium (also as a subgame perfect equilibrium if players are sufficiently patient and if n>2). Moreover, delays in agreement are also possible in such equilibria. By limiting ourselves to strategies that can be implemented by a machine (automaton) and by suitably modifying the definition of complexity for the purpose of analysing a single extensive form, we find that complexity costs do not reduce the range of possible allocations but they do limit the amount of delay that can occur in any agreement. In particular, we show that in any n-player game, for any allocation z, an agreement on z at any time period t can be sustained as a Nash equilibrium of the machine game with complexity costs if and only if in equilibrium, the machines implement stationary strategies. Finally, we also show that "noisy Nash equilibrium" with complexity costs sustain only the unique stationary subgame perfect equilibrium allocation.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
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.
|Date of creation:||Oct 1998|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: School of Economics and Finance, University of St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL|
Phone: 01334 462420
Fax: 01334 462438
Web page: http://crieff.wordpress.com/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:san:crieff:9808. See general 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: (the School of Economics)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.