Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines cheap talk negotiation's impact on collusion and efficiency in repeated games, suggesting key implications.
This paper addresses the relationship between cheap talk negotiation and collusion/efficiency in repeated games by explicitly modelling the negotiation. At each date, players bargain over how to play the continuation game and thereafter they play a stage game G. We consider equilibria that are measurable with respect to the latest agreement - as they are salient/focal features of the past. We show equilibrium payoffs are bounded below by that of a Nash equilibrium of G and are weakly renegotiation-proof. Our main results are: a non-babbling efficient equilibrium exists in many games if the discount factor δ is high, and every equilibrium payoff is either babbling or efficient in the limit as δ → 1. Finally, we check the robustness of the latter result to two perturbations: complexity costs and trustworthy/honourable players. Equilibria that survive the former perturbation are efficient or induce one-shot Nash equilibria and equilibria that survive the latter are efficient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Okada et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: