[This paper proposes a simple theory to explain bargaining impasses, which is based on Schelling's view of the bargaining process as a struggle between bargainers to commit themselves to favorable bargaining positions. Because bargaining impasses are generally Pareto-inefficient, anything involving a positive probability of impasse is Pareto-inefficient as well. It is demonstrated that in spite of this avoidable inefficiency, when successful commitment is uncertain and irreversible it can still be rational for individuals to attempt commitment and thereby risk an impasse; in a leading special case, the model reduces to a Prisoner's Dilemma game, in which only strategic-dominance arguments are needed to establish this conclusion. Further, making commitment more difficult, or changing the costs of disagreement in a way that makes available a wider range of settlements that are better for both bargainers than disagreement, need not always lower the probability of impasse, in spite of the conventional wisdom to the contrary.]

Examples are given which show that:(i) normality is not Necessary for the consistency of the quasi maximum likelihood estimator in the nonlinear simultaneous equations model (nonlinear FIML) even when there are major departures from linearity; and (ii) the lemma which is used extensively by Amemiya [2] in the theoretical development of the properties of nonlinear FIML under the assumption of normality is, as presently stated, incorrect.

Competitive adjustment processes in labor markets with perfect information but heterogeneous firms and workers are studied. Generalizing results of Shapley and Shubik [7], and of Crawford and Knoer [1], we show that equilibrium in such markets exists and is stable, in spite of workers' discrete choices among jobs, provided that all workers are gross substitutes from each firm's standpoint. We also generalize Gale and Shapley's [3] result that the equilibrium to which the adjustment process converges is biased in favor of agents on the side of the market that makes offers, beyond the class of economies to which it was extended by Crawford and Knoer [1]. Finally, we use our techniques to establish the existence of equilibrium in a wider class of markets, and some sensible comparative statics results about the effects of adding agents to the market are obtained. THE ARROW-DEBREU THEORY of general economic equilibrium has long been recognized as a powerful and elegant tool for the analysis of resource allocation in market economies. Not all markets fit equally well into the Arrow-Debreu framework, however. Consider, for example, the labor market-or the housing market, which provides an equally good example for most of our purposes. Essential features of the labor market are pervasive uncertainty about market opportunities on the part of participants, extensive heterogeneity, in the sense that job satisfaction and productivity generally differ (and are expected to differ) interactively and significantly across workers and jobs, and large set-up costs and returns to specialization that typically limit workers to one job. All of these features can be fitted formally into the Arrow-Debreu framework. State-contingent general equilibrium theory, for example, provides a starting point for studying the effects of uncertainty. But this analysis has been made richer and its explanatory power broadened by the examination of equilibrium with incomplete markets, search theory, and market signaling theory. The purpose of this paper is to attempt some improvements in another dimension: we study the outcome of competitive sorting processes in markets where complete heterogeneity prevails (or may prevail). To do this, we take as given the implications of set-up costs and returns to specialization by assuming that, while firms can hire any number of workers, workers can take at most one job. We also return to the simplification of perfect information. In the customary view of competitive markets, agents take market prices as given and respond noncooperatively to them. In this framework equilibrium cannot exist in general unless the goods traded in each market are truly homogeneous; heterogeneity therefore generally requires a very large number of markets. And since these markets are necessarily extremely thin-in many cases containing only a single agent on each side-the traditional stories supporting the plausibility of price-taking behavior are quite strained.

This paper develops a model of strategic communication, in which a better-informed Sender (S) sends a possibly noisy signal to a Receiver (R), who then takes an action that determines the welfare of both. We characterize the set of Bayesian Nash equilibria under standard assumptions, and show that equilibrium signaling always takes a strikingly simple form, in which S partitions the support of the (scalar) variable that represents his private information and introduces noise into his signal by reporting, in effect, only which element of the partition his observation actually lies in. We show under further assumptions that before S observes his private information, the equilibrium whose partition has the greatest number of elements is Pareto-superior to all other equilibria, and that if agents coordinate on this equilibrium, R's equilibrium expected utility rises when agents' preferences become more similar. Since R bases his choice of action on rational expectations, this establishes a sense in which equilibrium signaling is more informative when agents' preferences are more similar.

In this note the relationship between alternative concepts of noncausality is analyzed using the tool of conditional independence among a-fields. (For the reader who is unfamiliar with this technique, the Appendix sketches the proofs and the basic technical apparatus, along with some basic motivations.) Furthermore, the relationship between the concepts of noncausality and transitivity is made explicit in order to facilitate, in econometric modelling, the use of results already obtained in sequential analysis.

We consider the problem of how to regulate a monopolistic firm whose costs are unknown to the regulator. The regulator's objective is to maximize a linear social welfare of the consumers' surplus and the firm's profit. In the optimal regulatory policy, prices and subsidies are designed as functions of the firm's cost report so that expected social welfare is maximized, subject to the constraints that the firm has nonnegative profit and has no incentive to misrepresent its costs. We explicitly derive the optimal policy and analyze its properties. IN THEIR CLASSIC PAPERS Dupuit [2] and Hotelling [5] considered pricing policies for a bridge that had a fixed cost of construction and zero marginal cost. They demonstrated that the pricing policy that maximizes consumer well-being is to set price equal to marginal cost and to provide a subsidy to the supplier equal to the fixed cost, so that a firm would be willing to provide the bridge. This first-best solution is based on a number of informational assumptions. First, the demand is assumed to be known to both the regulator and to the firm. While the assumption of complete information may be too strong, the assumption that information about demand is as available to the regulator as it is to the firm does not seem unnatural. A second informational assumption is that the regulator has complete information about the cost of the firm or at least has the same information about cost as does the firm. This assumption is unlikely to be met in reality, since the firm would be expected to have better information about costs than would the regulator. As Weitzman has stated, An essential feature of the regulatory environment I am trying to describe is uncertainty about the exact specification of each firm's cost function. In most cases even the managers and engineers most closely associated with production will be unable to precisely specify beforehand the cheapest way to generate various hypothetical output levels. Because they are yet removed from the production process, the regulators are likely to be vaguer still about a firm's cost function [12, p. 684]. As this observation suggests, it is natural to expect that a firm would have better information regarding its costs than would a regulator. The purpose of this paper is to develop an optimal regulatory policy for the case in which the regulator does not know the costs of the firm. One strategy that a regulator could use in the absence of full information about costs is to give the firm the title to the total social surplus and to delegate the pricing decision to the firm. In pursuing its own interests, which would then be to maximize the total social surplus, the firm would adopt the same marginal cost pricing strategy that the regulator would have imposed if the regulator had