Advertisement

Cooperative games with incomplete information

  • R.B. Myerson
Part of the Studies in Economic Theory book series (ECON.THEORY, volume 19)

Summary

A bargaining solution concept which generalizes the Nash bargaining solution and the Shapley NTU value is defined for cooperative games with incomplete information. These bargaining solutions are efficient and equitable when interpersonal comparisons are made in terms of certain virtual utility scales. A player’s virtual utility differs from his real utility by exaggerating the difference from the preferences of false types that jeopardize his true type. In any incentive-efficient mechanism, the players always maximize their total virtual utility ex post. Conditionally transferable virtual utility is the strongest possible transferability assumption for games with incomplete information.

Keywords

Incomplete Information Cooperative Game Solution Concept Grand Coalition Bargaining Solution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. D’Aspremont, C., Gerard-Varet, L.-A.: Incentives and incomplete information. Journal of Public Economics 11, 25–45 (1979)Google Scholar
  2. Harsanyi, J.C.: Simplified bargaining model for the n-person cooperative game. International Economic Review 4, 194–220 (1963)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Harsanyi, J.C.: Games with incomplete information played by “Bayesian” players. Management Science 14, 159–189, 320–334, 486–502 (1967–1968)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Harsanyi, J.C., Selten, R.: Ageneralized Nash bargaining solution for two-person games with incomplete information. Management Science 18, P80–P106 (1972)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Holmström, B., Myerson, R.B.: Efficient and durable decision rules with incomplete information. Econometrica 51, 1799–1819 (1983)Google Scholar
  6. Kakutani, S.: A generalization of Brouwer’s fixed point theorem. Duke Journal of Mathematics 8, 457–459 (1941)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Myerson, R.B.: Incentive compatibility and the bargaining problem. Econometrica 47, 61–73 (1979)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Myerson, R.B.: Mechanism design by an informed principal. Econometrica 51, 1767–1797 (1983)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Myerson, R.B.: Two-person bargaining problems with incomplete information. Mimeo, Northwestern University: Evanston 1982. Subsequently published in Econometria 52, 461–487 (1984)Google Scholar
  10. Nash, J.F.: The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18, 155–162 (1950)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Nash, J.F.: Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica 21, 128–140 (1953)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Roth, A.E.: Values for games without sidepayments: some difficulties with current concepts. Econometrica 48, 457–465 (1980)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Shafer, W.J.: On the existence and interpretation of value allocation. Econometrica 48, 467–476 (1980)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Shapley, L.S.: A value for n-person games. In: Kuhn, H.W., Tucker, A.W. (eds.) Contributions to the theory of games, II, pp. 307–317. Princeton 1953Google Scholar
  15. Shapley, L.S.: Utility comparison and the theory of games. In: La decision, pp. 251–263. Paris 1969. Reprinted in: Roth, A.E. (ed.) The Shapley Value: essays in honor of Lloyd S. Shapley, chapter 19, pp. 3307–319. Cambridge U Press 1988Google Scholar
  16. Shapley, L.S., Shubik, M.: Game theory in economics, Chap. 6: Characteristic function, core, and stable set. Santa Monica 1973. And published in: Shubik, M. (ed.) Game theory in the social sciences: concepts and solution, chapter 6, pp. 127–178. Mit Press 1982Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • R.B. Myerson
    • 1
  1. 1.Kellogg Graduate School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations