In a recent paper, [Bergemann et al. 2017a], we derive results about equilibrium behavior in the first-price auction that hold across all common-prior information structures. The purpose of this letter is to give an informal introduction into the results. At the end we offer a brief discussion of related work.
Modeling automation as factor-augmenting technological change has unappealing implications. Instead, modeling it as the process of machines replacing tasks previously performed by labor is both descriptively realistic and leads to distinct and plausible predictions. In contrast to factor-augmenting technological change, the automation of tasks always reduces the labor share and can reduce the equilibrium wage (for realistic parameter values). This approach to automation underscores the role of new tasks, changes in the comparative advantage of labor, the possibility that machines become more productive in automated tasks, and the elasticity of substitution and capital accumulation in the adjustment of the economy.
We formulate a model of social interactions and misinferences by agents who neglect assortativity in their society, mistakenly believing that they interact with a representative sample of the population. A key component of our approach is the interplay between this bias and agents’ strategic incentives. We highlight a mechanism through which assortativity neglect, combined with strategic complementarities in agents’ behavior, drives up action dispersion in society (e.g., socioeconomic disparities in education investment). We also show how the combination of assortativity neglect and strategic incentives may help to explain empirically documented misperceptions of income inequality and political attitude polarization.
We study equilibrium uniqueness in entry games with private information. Our framework embeds models commonly used in applied work, allowing rich forms of firm heterogeneity and selective entry. We introduce the notion of strength, which summarizes a firm’s ability to endure competition. In environments of applied interest, an equilibrium in which entry strategies are ranked according to strength, called herculean equilibrium, always exists. Thus, when the entry game has a unique equilibrium, it must be herculean. We derive simple sufficient conditions guaranteeing equilibrium uniqueness and, consequently, robust counterfactual analyses.
We study market entry decisions when firms have private information about their profitability. We generalize current models by allowing general forms of market competition and heterogeneous firms that self-select when entering the market. Post-entry profits depend on market structure, and on the identities and the private information of the entering firms. We introduce a notion of the firm’s strength and show that an equilibrium where players’ strategies are ranked by strength, or herculean equilibrium, always exists. Moreover, when profits are elastic enough with respect to the firm’s private information, the herculean equilibrium is the unique equilibrium of the game.
We formulate a model of social interactions and misinferences by agents who neglect assortativity in their society, mistakenly believing that they interact with a representative sample of the population. A key component of our approach is the interplay between this bias and agents’ strategic incentives. We highlight a mechanism through which assortativity neglect, combined with strategic complementarities in agents’ behavior, drives up action dispersion in society (e.g., socioeconomic disparities in education investment). We also suggest that the combination of assortativity neglect and strategic incentives may be relevant in understanding empirically documented misperceptions of income inequality and political attitude polarization.