Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:34:10.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hidden information, bargaining power, and efficiency: an experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Antonio Cabrales,
Gary Charness and
Marie Claire Villeval
Antonio Cabrales*
Affiliation:
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Gary Charness*
Affiliation:
University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, USA
Marie Claire Villeval*
Affiliation:
University of Lyon, CNRS, Lyon 69007, France
*
e-mail: antonio.cabrales@uc3m.es
e-mail: charness@econ.ucsb.edu
e-mail: villeval@gate.cnrs.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

We devise an experiment to explore the effect of different degrees of bargaining power on the design and the selection of contracts in a hidden-information context. In our benchmark case, each principal is matched with one agent of unknown type. In our second treatment, a principal can select one of three agents, while in a third treatment an agent may choose between the contract menus offered by two principals. We first show theoretically how different ratios of principals and agents affect outcomes and efficiency. Informational asymmetries generate inefficiency. In an environment where principals compete against each other to hire agents, these inefficiencies may disappear, but they are insensitive to the number of principals. In contrast, when agents compete to be hired, efficiency improves dramatically, and it increases in the relative number of agents because competition reduces the agents’ informational monopoly power. However, this environment also generates a high inequality level and is characterized by multiple equilibria. In general, there is a fairly high degree of correspondence between the theoretical predictions and the contract menus actually chosen in each treatment. There is, however, a tendency to choose more ‘generous’ (and more efficient) contract menus over time. We find that competition leads to a substantially higher probability of trade, and that, overall, competition between agents generates the most efficient outcomes.

Keywords

ExperimentHidden informationBargaining powerCompetitionEfficiency

JEL classification

D21: Firm Behavior: TheoryA13: Relation of Economics to Social ValuesJ41: Labor ContractsB49: OtherC91: Laboratory, Individual BehaviorC92: Laboratory, Group Behavior

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , May 2011, pp. 133 - 159
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2010

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s10683-010-9260-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Akerlof, G. (1970). The Market for ‘Lemons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderhub, V., Gächter, S., & Königstein, M. (2002). Efficient contracting and fair play in a simple principal-agent experiment. Experimental Economics, 5(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, J., Camerer, C. F., & Porter, D. (1994). An experimental analysis of Nash refinements in signaling games. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, J. E., Daley, L. A., Dickhaut, J. W., & O'Brien, J. (1992). Moral hazard and risk sharing: experimental evidence. Research in Experimental Economics, 5, 1–34.Google Scholar
Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2004). Do labour market conditions affect gift exchange? Some experimental evidence. Economic Journal, 114, 684–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., & Holt, C. (1992). An experimental test of equilibrium dominance in signaling games. American Economic Review, 82, 1350–1365.Google Scholar
Cabrales, A., & Charness, G. (Forthcoming). Optimal contracts with team production and hidden information: an experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.Google Scholar
Cawley, J., & Philipson, T. (1999). An empirical examination of information barriers to trade in insurance. American Economic Review, 89, 827–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Dufwenberg, M. (2006). Promises and partnership. Econometrica, 74, 1579–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Dufwenberg, M. (Forthcoming). Contracts and communication. American Economic Review.Google Scholar
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., Kuhn, P., & Villeval, M. C. (Forthcoming). Competition and the ratchet effect. Journal of Labor Economics.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, A. (1998). The ratchet principle in a principal agent game with unknown costs: an experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 37, 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiappori, P. A., & Salanié, B. (2000). Testing for asymmetric information in insurance markets. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 56–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiappori, P. A., & Salanié, B. (2003). Testing contract theory: a survey of some recent work. In Dewatripont, M., Hansen, L., & Turnovsky, S. (Eds.), Advances in economics and econometrics: Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, D., Kagel, J., Lo, W., & Gu, Q. L. (1999). Gaming against managers in incentive systems: experimental results with Chinese students and Chinese managers. American Economic Review, 89, 781–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlby, B. (1983). Adverse selection and statistical discrimination: an analysis of Canadian automobile insurance. Journal of Public Economics, 20, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D., Holt, C.A. (1994). Equilibrium cooperation in three-person, choice of partner games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeJong, D., Forsythe, R., Lundholm, R., & Uecker, W. C. (1985). A laboratory investigation of the moral hazard problem in an agency relationship. Journal of Accounting Research, 23, 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dione, G., & Doherty, N. (1994). Adverse selection, commitment and renegotiation: extension to and evidence from insurance markets. Journal of Political Economy, 102(2), 210–235.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., Kirchler, E., Weichbold, A., & Gachter, S. (1998). When social norms overpower competition: gift exchange in experimental labor markets. Journal of Labor Economics, 16, 324–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, A., & Poterba, J. (2004). Adverse selection in insurance markets: policyholder evidence from the U.K. annuity market. Journal of Political Economy, 112(1), 183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U., Fong, C. M., & Fehr, E. (2009). Fairness, errors, and the power of competition. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 72, 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freixas, X., & Rochet, J. C. (1997). Microeconomics of banking. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Genesove, D. (1993). Adverse selection in the wholesale used car market. Journal of Political Economy, 104, 644–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In Kremer, K. & Macho, V. (Eds.): Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDGBericht63 (pp. 79–93). Göttingen: Ges. für Wiss. Datenverarbeitung.Google Scholar
Grosskopf, B. (2003). Reinforcement and directional learning in the ultimatum game with responder competition. Experimental Economics, 6, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C. A., & Sherman, R. (1990). Advertising and product quality in posted-offer experiments. Economic Inquiry, 28, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanemoto, Y., & MacLeod, B. W. (1992). The ratchet effect and the market for secondhand workers. Journal of Labor Economics, 10(1), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keser, C., & Willinger, M. (2000). Principals’ principles when agents’ actions are hidden. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Königstein, M. (2001). Optimal contracting with boundedly rational agents. Homo oeconomicus, XVIII(2), 211–228.Google Scholar
Laffont, J. J., & Tirole, J. (1993). A theory of incentives in procurement and regulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lazear, E. P. (1999). Personnel economics: past lessons and future directions. Journal of Labor Economics, 17(2), 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M., Miller, R. M., Plott, C. R., & Porter, R. (1986). Product quality, consumer information, and ‘lemons’ in experimental markets In Ippolito, M., & Scheffman, D. T. (Eds.), Empirical approaches to consumer protection economics (pp. 251–306). Washington: Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics.Google Scholar
Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., & Green, J. R. (1995). Microeconomic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization and management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Miller, R. M., & Plott, C. R. (1985). Product quality signaling in experimental markets. Econometrica, 53(4), 837–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirrlees, J. A. (1971). An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation. Review of Economic Studies, 38(114), 175–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prendergast, C. (1999). The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 7–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puelz, R., & Snow, A. (1994). Evidence on adverse selection: equilibrium signalling and cross-subsidization in the insurance market. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 236–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, D. (1998). Development economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roth, A., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: an experimental study. American Economic Review, 81(5), 1068–1095.Google Scholar
Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 16, 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Siemens, F. (2010, forthcoming). Social preferences, sorting, and competition. Oxford Economic Papers.Google Scholar
Young, P. H., & Burke, M. A. (2001). Competition and custom in economic contracts: a case study of Illinois agriculture. American Economic Review, 91, 559–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeiliger, Romain (2000). A Presentation of Regate, Internet Based Software for Experimental Economics. http://www.gate.cnrs.fr/~zeiliger/regate/RegateIntro.ppt, GATE.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cabrales et al. supplementary material

Cabrales et al. supplementary material
Download Cabrales et al. supplementary material(File)
File 95.7 KB