Does information transparency decrease coordination failure?

This study experimentally tests the effect of information transparency on the probability of coordination failure in global games with finite signals. Prior theory has shown that in global games with unique equilibrium, the effect of information transparency is ambiguous. We find that in global games where the signal space is finite, increased transparency has two effects. First, increasing the level of transparency usually destroys uniqueness and precipitates multiple equilibria, so that the effect of transparency on coordination depends crucially upon which equilibrium is actually attained. Second, the level of transparency determines which of these equilibria is risk dominant. We find that increased transparency facilitates coordination only if it switches the risk-dominant equilibrium from the secure equilibrium to the efficient equilibrium. When the converse is true, improved transparency can be dysfunctional because it increases the probability of coordination failure.

[1]  David Porter,et al.  Group Prediction in Information Markets With and Without Trading Information and Price Manipulation Incentives , 2008 .

[2]  Christian Hellwig,et al.  Public Information, Private Information, and the Multiplicity of Equilibria in Coordination Games , 2002, J. Econ. Theory.

[3]  Miguel A. Costa-Gomes,et al.  Cognition and Behavior in Two-Person Guessing Games: An Experimental Study , 2003 .

[4]  H. Carlsson,et al.  Global Games and Equilibrium Selection Author ( s ) : , 1993 .

[5]  Robustness of Level-k Reasoning in Generalized Beauty Contest Games , 2009 .

[6]  Philip H. Dybvig,et al.  Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance, and Liquidity , 1983, Journal of Political Economy.

[7]  S. Morris,et al.  Coordination Risk and the Price of Debt , 2002 .

[8]  S. Morris,et al.  Unique Equilibrium in a Model of Self-Fulfilling Currency Attacks" American Economic Review , 1996 .

[9]  Robert Forsythe,et al.  Selection Criteria in Coordination Games: Some Experimental Results , 1987 .

[10]  J. Huyck,et al.  Strategic Uncertainty, Equilibrium Selection, and Coordination Failure in Average Opinion Games , 1991 .

[11]  S. Morris,et al.  Global Games: Theory and Applications , 2001 .

[12]  J. Huyck,et al.  Tacit Coordination Games, Strategic Uncertainty, and Coordination Failure , 1990 .

[13]  Miguel A. Costa-Gomes,et al.  Cognition and Behavior in Normal-Form Games: An Experimental Study , 1998 .

[14]  John Dickhaut,et al.  Information Transparency and Coordination Failure: Theory and Experiment , 2004 .

[15]  T. W. Ross,et al.  Communication in Coordination Games , 1992 .

[16]  V. Crawford,et al.  Level-k Auctions: Can a Non-Equilibrium Model of Strategic Thinking Explain the Winner's Curse and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions? , 2007 .

[17]  R. Nagel,et al.  THE THEORY OF GLOBAL GAMES ON TEST: EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF COORDINATION GAMES WITH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INFORMATION , 2004 .

[18]  Miguel A. Costa-Gomes,et al.  Comparing Models of Strategic Thinking in Van Huyck, Battalio, and Beil’s Coordination Games , 2009 .

[19]  Itay Goldstein,et al.  Demand Deposit Contracts and the Probability of Bank Runs , 2002 .

[20]  R. Nagel Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study , 1995 .

[21]  D. Stahl,et al.  On Players' Models of Other Players: Theory and Experimental Evidence , 1995 .

[22]  Lars Peter Hansen,et al.  Advances in Economics and Econometrics , 2003 .

[23]  John C. Harsanyi,et al.  Общая теория выбора равновесия в играх / A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games , 1989 .