scholarly journals Alternating offers with asymmetric information and the unemployment volatility puzzle

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 87-91
Author(s):  
Pierrick Clerc
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 485-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Shupp ◽  
John Cadigan ◽  
Pamela M. Schmitt ◽  
Kurtis J. Swope

Abstract This paper examines the behavior in multilateral bargaining experiments with alternating offers and asymmetric information. In all experiments, a single buyer has up to ten bargaining periods to purchase one unit of a good from each of two sellers. Treatments vary based on who makes the first offer (buyer or sellers), timing (consistent buyer-offer/sellers-demand or alternating), and information (buyer’s value and sellers’ costs are known or come from a uniform distribution). We find that actual bargaining outcomes are virtually identical when offers alternate, regardless of which player makes the first offer. We find that alternating offers reduce bargaining delay slightly compared to treatments in which one side or the other makes repeated take-it-or-leave-it offers. Finally, we find that incomplete information increases bargaining delay and the likelihood of failed agreements.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Bingsong Wang

This paper shows that the ability of the credible wage bargaining model to match the observed unemployment volatility hinges on an unrealistic assumption about disagreement payoffs to the firm. Relaxing this assumption can lead to the substantial wage flexibility. As a consequence, the model is unable to capture the observed unemployment volatility.


2011 ◽  
pp. 65-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ch. Pissarides

The author discusses the failure of the canonical search and matching model to explain the cyclical volatility in the job finding rate. The author - the Nobel Prize winner in economics in 2010 - shows that job creation in the model is influenced by wages in new matches. He summarizes microeconometric evidence and finds that wages in new matches are volatile and consistent with the models key predictions. Therefore, explanations of the unemployment volatility puzzle have to preserve the cyclical volatility of wages. The author discusses a modification of the model, based on fixed matching costs, that can increase cyclical unemployment volatility and is consistent with wage flexibility in new matches.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document