How robust is undominated Nash implementation?

Palfrey and Srivastava (1991) show that almost any social choice correspondence(SCC) is implemented in undominated Nash equilibrium, a refinement of Nash equilibrium. By requiring solution concepts to have closed graph in the limit of complete information, Chung and Ely (2003) investigate the robust...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: KUNIMOTO, Takashi
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2010
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soe_research/2076
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soe_research/article/3075/viewcontent/How_Robust_is_Undominated_Nash_Implementation.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.soe_research-3075
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.soe_research-30752022-09-22T06:20:35Z How robust is undominated Nash implementation? KUNIMOTO, Takashi Palfrey and Srivastava (1991) show that almost any social choice correspondence(SCC) is implemented in undominated Nash equilibrium, a refinement of Nash equilibrium. By requiring solution concepts to have closed graph in the limit of complete information, Chung and Ely (2003) investigate the robustness of undominated Nash implementation. Their robustness test concludes that when preferences are strict (or more generally, hedonic), only monotonic SCCs can be implemented in the closure of the undominated Nash (equilibrium) correspondence. This paper re-examines this robustness test. I show that almost any SCC is implemented in the closure of the undominated Nash correspondence, provided that the planner is certain that there is “approximate” common knowledge. I also show that only monotonic SCCs can be implemented in the closure of the undominated Nash correspondence, provided that the planner is only nearly certain that there is approximate common knowledge. Therefore, this robustness test, on the one hand, generates new restrictions imposed on the set of implementable SCCs, and on the other hand, clarifies the extent to which the permissive implementation results are sustained. 2010-06-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soe_research/2076 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soe_research/article/3075/viewcontent/How_Robust_is_Undominated_Nash_Implementation.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection School Of Economics eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Approximate common knowledge Implementation Monotonicity Robustness Undominated Nash equilibrium Economic Theory
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Approximate common knowledge
Implementation
Monotonicity
Robustness
Undominated Nash equilibrium
Economic Theory
spellingShingle Approximate common knowledge
Implementation
Monotonicity
Robustness
Undominated Nash equilibrium
Economic Theory
KUNIMOTO, Takashi
How robust is undominated Nash implementation?
description Palfrey and Srivastava (1991) show that almost any social choice correspondence(SCC) is implemented in undominated Nash equilibrium, a refinement of Nash equilibrium. By requiring solution concepts to have closed graph in the limit of complete information, Chung and Ely (2003) investigate the robustness of undominated Nash implementation. Their robustness test concludes that when preferences are strict (or more generally, hedonic), only monotonic SCCs can be implemented in the closure of the undominated Nash (equilibrium) correspondence. This paper re-examines this robustness test. I show that almost any SCC is implemented in the closure of the undominated Nash correspondence, provided that the planner is certain that there is “approximate” common knowledge. I also show that only monotonic SCCs can be implemented in the closure of the undominated Nash correspondence, provided that the planner is only nearly certain that there is approximate common knowledge. Therefore, this robustness test, on the one hand, generates new restrictions imposed on the set of implementable SCCs, and on the other hand, clarifies the extent to which the permissive implementation results are sustained.
format text
author KUNIMOTO, Takashi
author_facet KUNIMOTO, Takashi
author_sort KUNIMOTO, Takashi
title How robust is undominated Nash implementation?
title_short How robust is undominated Nash implementation?
title_full How robust is undominated Nash implementation?
title_fullStr How robust is undominated Nash implementation?
title_full_unstemmed How robust is undominated Nash implementation?
title_sort how robust is undominated nash implementation?
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2010
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soe_research/2076
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soe_research/article/3075/viewcontent/How_Robust_is_Undominated_Nash_Implementation.pdf
_version_ 1770573651123372032