Skip to main content

On Perfectly Coalition-proof Nash Equilibria

  • Chapter
Equilibrium and Dynamics
  • 72 Accesses

Abstract

The most prominent solution in the theory of noncooperative games is the Nash equilibrium. However, there are some fundamental problems with the interpretation and application of it that led to many refinements (see, e.g., Selten, 1975). The following difficulty concerning the application of Nash equilibria has been pointed out in Bernheim, Peleg, and Whinston [1987]. Let g = (∑ 1, …, ∑n; h 1, …, hn) be a game in strategic form and assume that g has two or more equilibria. In order to choose an equilibrium point the players have to meet and coordinate their strategies. Thus, from a theoretical point of view, preplay communication is needed for the implementation of Nash equilibria. However, one may argue that the players of g may use a theory that selects a unique equilibrium for each game in order to avoid preplay communication (see Harsanyi, 1975). This is possible only at a theoretical level, because in real life games there are almost always possibilities for direct or indirect communication, and there are no means to prevent coalitions of players from coordinating their strategies. In summary, in important classes of noncooperative environments preplay communication is unavoidable and, therefore, coalitions may coordinate their strategies and deviate from an equilibrium.

The writing of this study was completed while the author was visiting Cornell University.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bernheim, B. D., B. Peleg and M. D. Whinston (1987) ‘Coalition-proof Nash Equilibria I: Concepts’, Journal of Economic Theory, 42, pp. 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernheim, B. D. and M. D. Whinston (1987) ‘Coalition-proof Nash Equilibria II: Applications’, Journal of Economic Theory, 42, pp. 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, D. (1953) ‘A Theory of N-Person Games with Perfect Information’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 39, 496–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, J. C. (1975) ‘The Tracing Procedure: a Bayesian Approach to Defining a Solution for N-Person Noncooperative Games’, International Journal of Game Theory, 4, pp. 61–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ichiishi, T. (1986) ‘stable Extensive Game Forms with Perfect Information’, International Journal of Game Theory, 15, pp. 163–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulin, H. (1983) The Strategy of Social Choice (Amsterdam: North-Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peleg, B. (1984) Game Theoretic Analysis of Voting in Committees (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Selten, R. (1975) ‘Reexamination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games’, International Journal of Game Theory, 4, pp. 25–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 1992 Mukul Majumdar

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peleg, B. (1992). On Perfectly Coalition-proof Nash Equilibria. In: Majumdar, M. (eds) Equilibrium and Dynamics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11696-6_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics