Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T12:19:01.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Long-Run Relationships and the Credibility of Threats and Promises

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2013

Sushil Bikhchandani
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
John G. Riley
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access

Summary

The last few chapters investigated strategic interaction between players in a variety of settings. However, the analysis presumed a one-time interaction among players. This chapter inquires into the further strategic opportunities that are introduced when individuals interact with one another repeatedly.

Long-run relationships lead to two types of phenomenon. First, the set of utility payoffs that can be supported as equilibrium outcomes expands. This may be achieved by threatening to punish opponents in later periods of play if they deviate from a sequence of actions that yields the desired utility payoffs. Second, an individual with private information should be able to make favorable information about himself (information that he is a high-quality or otherwise desirable trading partner) credible by actions taken in the early periods of a long-run relationship. That is, an individual should be able to develop a reputation.

The Multi-Period Prisoners’ Dilemma

Let us begin by examining the Prisoners’ Dilemma. In Table 11.1, each individual i(i = 1, 2) may choose to play either “Defect” (strategy x1) or “Cooperate” (strategy x2). The Prisoners’ Dilemma environment is defined by the ranked payoffs in Table 11.1 if e > f > g > h. Table 11.2 is a numerical example.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aumann, Robert and Shapley, Lloyd, “Long Term Competition: A Game Theoretic Analysis,” mimeo, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976.
Benoit, Jean-Pierre and Krishna, Vijay, “Finitely Repeated Games,” Econometrica, 53 (1985), 905–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cripps, Martin W., “Reputation,” in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Durlauf, Steven N. and Blume, Lawrence E. (eds.), 2nd edition, vol. 7, pp. 105–112, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.Google Scholar
Ely, Jeffery and Valimaki, Juuso, “Bad Reputation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (2003), 785–814.Google Scholar
Friedman, James, “A Noncooperative Equilibrium for Supergames,” Econometrica, 38 (1971), 1–12.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, Drew and Levine, David, “Reputation and Equilibrium Selection in Games with a Patient Player,” Econometrica, 47 (1989), 759–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudenberg, Drew, Levine, David, and Maskin, Eric S., “The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information,” Econometrica, 54 (1986), 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandori, Michiro, “Repeated Games,” in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Durlauf, S.N. and Blume, L.E. (eds.), 2nd edition, vol. 7, pp. 98–105, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.Google Scholar
Kreps, David and Wilson, Robert, “Reputation and Imperfect Information,” Journal of Economic Theory, 27 (1982), 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mailath, George J. and Samuelson, Larry, Repeated Games and Reputations: Long-Run Relationships, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, Paul and Roberts, John, “Limit Pricing and Entry under Incomplete Information,” Econometrica, 50 (1982), 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, David G., “Repeated Games: Cooperation and Rationality,” in Advances in Economic Theory: Sixth World Congress, Laffont, Jean-Jacques (ed.), vol. 1, pp. 132–180, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, Ariel, “Equilibrium in Supergames with the Overtaking Criterion,” Journal of Economic Theory, 21 (1979), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, Reinhard, “The Chain Store Paradox,” Theory and Decision, 9 (1977), 127–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×