Matthew Van Essen

Hold‐Up: With a Vengeance

When contracts are incomplete or unenforceable, inefficient levels of investment may occur because of hold-up. If individuals care for negative reciprocity, these problems may be reduced, as revenge becomes a credible threat. However, negative reciprocity has this effect only when the investor holds the rights of control of the investment proceeds. We explore this issue analytically, deriving predictions for hold-up games which differ as regards assignment of rights of control. We also test and support these predictions in an experiment.

Out-of-Equilibrium Performance of Three Lindahl Mechanisms: Experimental Evidence

We describe an experimental comparison of the out-of-equilibrium performance of three allocation mechanisms designed to achieve Lindahl outcomes as Nash equilibria: the mechanisms due to Walker (1981), Kim (1993), and Chen (2002). We find that Chenʼs mechanism, which is supermodular, converges closest and most rapidly to its equilibrium. However, we find that the properties that move subjects toward equilibrium in Chenʼs mechanism typically generate sizeable taxes and subsidies when not in equilibrium, and correspondingly large budget surpluses and deficits, which typically far outweigh the surplus created by providing the public good. The Kim mechanism, on the other hand, converges relatively close to its equilibrium and exhibits much better out-of-equilibrium efficiency properties.

A note on the stability of Chen’s Lindahl mechanism

There are no general theoretical results on the stability of the Lindahl mechanism introduced by Chen (Econ Theory 19:773–790, 2002). We show that despite not fitting the requirements of the Milgrom and Roberts 1990 stability result for supermodular games, if the Chen mechanism induces a supermodular game, then the best reply map is a contraction. This gives us an easy to identify sufficient condition for dynamic stability of equilibrium.There are no general theoretical results on the stability of the Lindahl mechanism introduced by Chen (Econ Theory 19:773–790, 2002). We show that despite not fitting the requirements of the Milgrom and Roberts 1990 stability result for supermodular games, if the Chen mechanism induces a supermodular game, then the best reply map is a contraction. This gives us an easy to identify sufficient condition for dynamic stability of equilibrium.

Information complexity, punishment, and stability in two Nash efficient Lindahl mechanisms

Earlier experimental work on public good mechanisms has focused almost exclusively on stability issues, finding that institutions with robust equilibrium stability properties were better at achieving their equilibrium. In this study, we continue to explore this insight and, in addition, look at issues such as out-of-equilibrium punishment and complexity. The experiment varies stability conditions and group size in two Nash efficient Lindahl mechanisms. These mechanisms have similar stability properties. However, when groups are large, they differ both in the severity with which they punish out-of-equilibrium behavior and their informational complexity. We examine how these differences impact mechanism performance.

Blind Stealing: Experience and Expertise in a Mixed-Strategy Poker Experiment

We explore the role of experience in mixed-strategy games by comparing, for a stylized version of Texas Hold-em, the behavior of experts, who have extensive experience playing poker online, to the behavior of novices. We find significant differences. The initial frequencies with which players bet and call are closer to equilibrium for experts than novices. And, while the betting and calling frequencies of both types of subjects exhibit too much heterogeneity to be consistent with equilibrium play, the frequencies of experts exhibit less heterogeneity. We find evidence that the style of online play transfers from the field to the lab.

Regulating the Anticommons: Insights from Public-Expenditure Theory

This article offers a new interpretation of the traditional Cournot complements problem, or anticommons, by using the theory of public goods to gain a perspective on the problem. Specifically, I examine the pricing strategies and regulation of multiple monopolies that produce products which consumers view as perfect complements. I show that collusion by the firms increases total social welfare and that the collusion problem can be reinterpreted as a problem of provision of public goods from the point of view of the firms. I take this insight further and derive the familiar concepts of the Samuelson marginal condition and the ratio equilibrium for the firms. I compare these outcomes to the first best solution and then apply incentive-compatible mechanisms to strategically implement the Pareto superior ratio-equilibrium outcome and the optimal marginal-cost pricing outcome. Finally, I show how this methodology can be applied to the more familiar Cournot model of oligopoly.

King of the Hill: Giving Backward Induction its Best Shot

We study a class of deceptively similar games, which however have different player sets and predictions that vary with their cardinality. The economic, biological, political, and psychological applications are many. The game-theoretic principles involved are compelling as predictions rely on weaker and less controversial epistemic foundations than needed to justify backward inductions more generally. Is the account empirically relevant? We design and report results from a relevant experiment.

Dissolving a Partnership Securely

We characterize security strategies and payoffs for three mechanisms for dissolving partnerships: the Texas Shoot-Out, the K 1 auction, and the compensation auction. A security strategy maximizes a participants minimum payoff, and represents a natural starting point for analysis when a participant is either uncertain of the environment or uncertain of whether his rivals will play equilibrium. For the compensation auction, a dynamic dissolution mechanism, we introduce the notion of a perfect security strategy. Such a strategy maximizes a participants minimum payoff along every path of play. We show that the compensation auction has a unique such strategy.

A simple market-like allocation mechanism for public goods

We argue that since allocation mechanisms will not always be in equilibrium, their out-of-equilibrium properties must be taken into account along with their properties in equilibrium. For economies with public goods, we define a simple market-like mechanism in which the strong Nash equilibria yield the Lindahl allocations and prices. The mechanism satisfies critical out-of-equilibrium desiderata that previously-introduced mechanisms fail to satisfy, and always (weakly) yields Pareto improvements, whether in equilibrium or not. The mechanism requires participants to communicate prices and quantities, and turns these into outcomes according to a natural and intuitive outcome function. Our approach first exploits the equivalence, when there are only two participants, between the private-good and public-good allocation problems to obtain a two-person public-good mechanism, and then we generalize the public-good mechanism to an arbitrary number of participants. The results and the intuition behind them are illustrated in the familiar Edgeworth Box and Kolm Triangle diagrams.

Dissolving a Partnership Dynamically

In financial disputes arising from divorce, inheritance, or the dissolution of a partnership, frequently the need arises to assign ownership of an indivisible item to one member of a group. This paper introduces and analyzes a dynamic auction for simply and efficiently allocating an item when participants are privately informed of their values. In the auction, the price rises continuously. A bidder who drops out of the auction, in return for surrendering his claim to the item, obtains compensation equal to the difference between the price at which he drops and the preceding drop price. When only one bidder remains, that bidder wins the item and pays the compensations of his rivals. We characterize the unique equilibrium with risk-neutral and CARA risk averse bidders. We show that dropout prices are decreasing as bidders become more risk averse. Each bidders equilibrium payoff is at least 1/N-th of his value for the item.