Game Theory pp 312-318 | Cite as

Revelation Principle

  • Steven N. Durlauf
  • Lawrence E. Blume
Chapter
Part of the The New Palgrave Economics Collection book series (NPHE)

Abstract

Communication is central to the economic problem (Hayek, 1945). Opportunities for mutually beneficial transactions cannot be found unless individuals share information about their preferences and endowments. Markets and other economic institutions should be understood as mechanisms for facilitating communication. However, people cannot be expected to reveal information when it is against their interests; for example, a seller may conceal his willingness to sell at a lower price. Rational behaviour in any specific communication mechanism can be analysed using game-theoretic equilibrium concepts, but efficient institutions can be identified only by comparison with all possible communication mechanisms. The revelation principle is a technical insight that allows us, in any given economic situation, to make general statements about all possible communication mechanisms.

Keywords

Private Information Solution Concept Communication Mechanism Sequential Equilibrium Incentive Constraint 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Aumann, R. 1974. Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies. Journal of Mathematical Economics 1, 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, D. and Myerson, R. 1982. Regulating a monopolist with unknown costs. Econometrica 50, 911–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dasgupta, P., Hammond, P. and Maskin, E. 1979. The implementation of social choice rules: some results on incentive compatibility. Review of Economic Studies 46, 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gerardi, D. and Myerson, R. 2007. Sequential equilibrium in Bayesian games with communication. Games and Economic Behavior 60, 104–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gibbard, A. 1973. Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41, 587–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harris, M. and Townsend, R. 1981. Resource allocation under asymmetric information. Econometrica 49, 1477–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harsanyi, J. 1967. Games with incomplete information played by Bayesian players. Management Science 14, 159–82, 320–34, 486–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayek, F. 1945. The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review 35, 519–30.Google Scholar
  9. Holmstrom, B. 1977. On incentives and control in organizations. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  10. Myerson, R. 1979. Incentive-compatibility and the bargaining problem. Econometrica 47, 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Myerson, R. 1982. Optimal coordination mechanisms in generalized principal-agent problems. Journal of Mathematical Economics 10, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Myerson, R. 1985. Bayesian equilibrium and incentive compatibility: an introduction. In Social Goals and Social Organization, ed. L. Hurwicz, D. Schmeidler and H. Sonnenschein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Myerson, R. 1986. Multistage games with communication. Econometrica 54, 323–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nash, J. 1951. Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics 54, 286–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosenthal, R. 1978. Arbitration of two-party disputes under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies 45, 595–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven N. Durlauf
    • 1
  • Lawrence E. Blume
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MadisonUSA
  2. 2.Cornell UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations