We show that in a class of I ‐agent mechanism design problems with evidence, commitment is unnecessary, randomization has no value, and robust incentive compatibility has no cost. In particular, for each agent i , we construct a simple disclosure game between the principal and agent i where the equilibrium strategies of the agents in these disclosure games give their equilibrium strategies in the game corresponding to the mechanism but where the principal is not committed to his response. In this equilibrium, the principal obtains the same payoff as in the optimal mechanism with commitment. As an application, we show that certain costly verification models can be characterized using equilibrium analysis of an associated model of evidence.

We examine the consequences of vote buying, assuming this practice were allowed and free of stigma. Two parties compete in a binary election and may purchase votes in a sequential bidding game via up‐front binding payments and/or campaign promises (platforms) that are contingent on the outcome of the election. We analyze the role of the parties’ and voters’ preferences in determining the winner and the payments to voters.

A principal allocates an object to one of I agents. Each agent values receiving the object and has private information regarding the value to the principal of giving it to him. There are no monetary transfers, but the principal can check an agent’s information at a cost. A favored-agent mechanism specifies a value v* and an agent i*. If all agents other than i* report values below v*, then i* receives the good and no one is checked. Otherwise, whoever reports the highest value is checked and receives the good if and only if her report is confirmed. All optimal mechanisms are essentially randomizations over optimal favored-agent mechanisms.

“My own behaviour baffles me. For I find myself not doing what I really want to do but doing what I really loathe.” Saint Paul What behaviour can be explained using the hypothesis that the agent faces temptation but is otherwise a “standard rational agent”? In earlier work, Gul and Pesendorfer (2001) use a set betweenness axiom to restrict the set of preferences considered by Dekel, Lipman and Rustichini (2001) to those explainable via temptation. We argue that set betweenness rules out plausible and interesting forms of temptation including some which may be important in applications. We propose a pair of alternative axioms called DFC, desire for commitment, and AIC, approximate improvements are chosen. DFC characterizes temptation as situations in which given any set of alternatives, the agent prefers committing herself to some particular item from the set rather than leaving herself the flexibility of choosing later. AIC is based on the idea that if adding an option to a menu improves the menu, it is because that option is chosen under some circumstances. From this interpretation, the axiom concludes that if an improvement is worse (as a commitment) than some commitment from the menu, then the best commitment from the improved menu is strictly preferred to facing that menu. We show that these axioms characterize a natural generalization of the Gul-Pesendorfer representation.

This paper develops a decision-theoretic approach to normal-form refinements of Nash equilibrium and provides characterizations of (normal-form) perfect equilibrium and proper equilibrium. The approach relies on a theory of single-person decision-making that is a non-Archimedean version of subjective expected utility theory.

Conventional Bayesian theory of choice under uncertainty, subjective expected utility theory, fails to satisfy the properties of admissibility and existence of well-defined conditional probabilities; weakly dominated acts may be chosen, and the usual definition of conditional probabilities applies only to nonnull events. This paper develops a non-Archimedean variant of subjective expected utility where decisionmakers have lexicographic beliefs. This generalization can be made to satisfy admissibility and yield well-defined conditional probabilities and at the same time allow for "null" events.

Ž. We extend Kreps’ 1979 analysis of preference for flexibility, reinterpreted by Kreps Ž. 1992 as a model of unforeseen contingencies. We enrich the choice set, consequently obtaining uniqueness results that were not possible in Kreps’ model. We consider several representations and allow the agent to prefer commitment in some contingencies. In the representations, the agent acts as if she had coherent beliefs about a set of possible future Ž. ex post preferences, each of which is an expected-utility preference. We show that this set of ex post preferences, called the subjectie state space, is essentially unique given the restriction that all ex post preferences are expected-utility preferences and is minimal even without this restriction. Because the subjective state space is identified, the way ex post utilities are aggregated into an ex ante ranking is also essentially unique. Hence when a representation that is additive across states exists, the additivity is meaningful in the sense that all representations are intrinsically additive. Uniqueness enables us to show that the size of the subjective state space provides a measure of the agent’s uncertainty about future contingencies and that the way the states are aggregated indicates whether these contingencies lead to a desire for flexibility or commitment.

anonymous referees for comments and Tel–Aviv University for its hospitality during part of the work on this paper. Dekel thanks the NSF and Lipman thanks SSHRCC for financial support for this research. Dekel and Lipman particularly thank Phil Reny for a series of discussions which led to this project. This paper was formerly titled “Possibility Correspondences Preclude Unawareness.” 2