1996Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooksRequires access

Implementation in Nash Equilibrium (II): Applications

Luı́s C. Corchón

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

In the previous chapter we presented a general mechanism that implements in Nash equilibrium any social choice correspondence satisfying monotonicity and no veto power. A general criticism of the Nash equilibrium approach to the theory of implementation is that, in the case where a correspondence is implemented, this kind of equilibrium requires a good deal of coordination among agents in order to select those strategies corresponding to a particular equilibrium.1 This problem is well-known in game theory: when playing, say, The Battle of the Sexes agents may, by means of strategies that are part of different Nash equilibria of the game, achieve outcomes that are not Nash equilibria. In our case, if the mechanism is run by a real person, she can suggest what strategy agents have to use (truth-telling). This is of course cheap talk, but it makes slightly more palatable the assumption that agents know the particular Nash equilibrium that is going to be played.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In the previous chapter we presented a general mechanism that implements in Nash equilibrium any social choice correspondence satisfying monotonicity and no veto power. A general criticism of the Nash equilibrium approach to the theory of implementation is that, in the case where a correspondence is implemented, this kind of equilibrium requires a good deal of coordination among agents in order to select those strategies corresponding to a particular equilibrium.1 This problem is well-known in game theory: when playing, say, The Battle of the Sexes agents may, by means of strategies that are part of different Nash equilibria of the game, achieve outcomes that are not Nash equilibria. In our case, if the mechanism is run by a real person, she can suggest what strategy agents have to use (truth-telling). This is of course cheap talk, but it makes slightly more palatable the assumption that agents know the particular Nash equilibrium that is going to be played.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In the previous chapter we presented a general mechanism that implements in Nash equilibrium any social choice correspondence satisfying monotonicity and no veto power. A general criticism of the Nash equilibrium approach to the theory of implementation is that, in the case where a correspondence is implemented, this kind of equilibrium requires a good deal of coordination among agents in order to select those strategies corresponding to a particular equilibrium.1 This problem is well-known in game theory: when playing, say, The Battle of the Sexes agents may, by means of strategies that are part of different Nash equilibria of the game, achieve outcomes that are not Nash equilibria. In our case, if the mechanism is run by a real person, she can suggest what strategy agents have to use (truth-telling). This is of course cheap talk, but it makes slightly more palatable the assumption that agents know the particular Nash equilibrium that is going to be played.

Key concepts: Nash equilibrium, Epsilon-equilibrium, Mathematical economics, Best response, Equilibrium selection, Risk dominance, Correlated equilibrium, Folk theorem

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Implementation in Nash Equilibrium (II): Applications — Research Paper | ScholarLens