Search

A key question of auction design is whether to use an ascending-bid or a sealed-bid format. The critical distinction between formats is that an ascending auction provides the bidders with information through the process of bidding. This information is a two-edged sword. It may stimulate competition by creating a reliable process of price discovery, by reducing the winner's curse, and by allowing efficient aggregations of items. Alternatively, the information may be used by bidders to establish and enforce collusive outcomes. Ex ante asymmetries and weak competition favor a sealed-bid design. In other cases, an ascending auction is likely to perform better in efficiency and revenue terms. Moreover, information in an ascending auction can be tailored to limit collusion. Keywords: Auctions; Multiple-item auctions; Spectrum auctions

Deception in business negotiations is an ethically regrettable practice, contrary to Alan Strudler's advocacy of its occasional moral neutrality or benignity. The revised Mutual Trust principle interprets an individual's diminished obligation to refrain from deception in terms of contextual trust-deficiency and the costs of moral behavior. Concepts and tools designed to build an environment of trust without harming mutual interests can reduce the use of deception. Strudler is too quick to dismiss mutual trust, while his position could cause harm by supporting the status quo in negotiation.

We study wage bargaining in which the union is uncertain about the firm's willingness to pay and threat payoffs vary over time. Strike payoffs change as replacement workers are hired, as strikers find temporary jobs, and as inventories or strike funds run out. We find that bargaining outcomes are substantially altered if threat payoffs vary. If dispute costs increase in the long run, then dispute durations are longer, settlement rates are lower, and wages decline more slowly during the short run (and may even increase). The settlement wage is largely determined from the long-run threat, rather than the short-run threat.

We present a bargaining model of union contract negotiations, in which the union decides between two threats: the union can strike, or it can continue to work under the expired contract. The model makes predictions about the level of dispute activity and the form disputes take. Strike incidence increases as the strike threat becomes more attractive, because of low unemployment or a real wage drop. We test these predictions by estimating logistic models of dispute incidence and dispute composition for negotiations from 1970 to 1989. We find support for the model's key predictions, but these associations are weaker after 1981.

We develop a private-information model of union contract negotiations in which disputes signal a firm's willingness to pay. Previous models have assumed that all labor disputes take the form of a strike. Yet a prominent feature of U.S. collective bargaining is the holdout: negotiations often continue without a strike after the contract has expired. Production continues with workers paid according to the expired contract. We analyze the union's decision to strike or hold out and highlight its importance to strike activity. Strikes are more likely to occur after a drop in the real wage or a decline in unemployment.

The bargaining process involves making offers and counteroffers until the buyer and the seller reach an agreement or until one of the parties ceases to negotiate. Strategic bargaining is characterized by impatience to strike a deal which stems from the trader's consideration of future payoffs and the transaction bargaining costs. The amount of gains from trade and the relative costs of bargaining determine whether, in equilibrium, there will be immediate trade, delayed trade, or immediate termination of transactions.

The role of strategic delay is analyzed in an infinite-horizon alternating-offer model of bargaining. A buyer and seller are engaged in the trade of a single object. Both bargainers have private information about their own preferences and are impatient in that delaying agreement is costly. An equilibrium is constructed in which the bargainers signal the strength of their bargaining positions by delaying prior to making an offer. A bargainer expecting large gains from trade is more impatient than one expecting small gains, and hence makes concessions earlier on. Trade occurs whenever gains from trade exist, but due to the private information, only after costly delay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]