The sovereign-debt literature has often implicitly assumed that all the power in the bargaining game between debtor and creditor lies with the latter. This paper explores that assumption by analyzing three game-theoretic models of debt renegotiations. In two of the models, both of which are built on the traditional one-sector growth model, all the subgame-perfect equilibria have an extreme form in which the game's surplus is captured by the creditor. The third game has many subgame-perfect equilibria that do not have this feature, however. The roles of various assumptions in all three games are examined.

In this paper, the authors reexamine the data from B. O'Neill's (1987) experiment involving a repeated, two-person, constant-sum game. They find that there is less evidence in support of the minimax hypothesis than indicated by O'Neill. There is strong evidence of serial correlation in players' choices, with several players displaying statistically significant dependence on the past moves of their opponents. The authors interpret this finding as evidence that the plays themselves rejected minimax play as the appropriate model for their opponents' behavior. They find no evidence that players' behavior approached minimax behavior as players became more experienced.