The authors analyze the principal-agent relationship when the principal has private information as a three-stage game: contract proposal, acceptance/refusal, and contract execution. They assume that the information does not directly affect the agent's payoff (private values). Equilibrium exists and is generically locally unique. Moreover, it is Pareto optimal for the different types of principal. The principal generically does strictly better than when the agent knows her information. Equilibrium allocations are the Walrasian equilibria of an "economy" where the traders are different types of principal and "exchange" the slack on the agent's individual rationality and incentive compatibility constraints.

As was shown by Dewatripont, optimal long-term contracts under asymmetric information are generally not time-consistent. This paper fully characterizes the equilibrium of a two-period procurement model with commitment and renegotiation. It also analyzes whether renegotiated long-term contracts yield outcomes resembling those under either unrenegotiated long-term contracts or a sequence of short-term contracts, and links the analysis with the multiple unit durable good monopoly problem.

This paper develops a normative model of regulatory policy toward bypass and cream skimming. It analyzes the effects of bypass on second-degree price discrimination, on the rent of the regulated firm, and on the welfare of low-demand customers. It shows that pricing under marginal cost may be optimal for the regulated firm, excessive cream skimming occurs if access to the bypass technology is not regulated, and the prohibition of bypass may increase or decrease the regulated firm's rent.

Ve consider the problem of designing a contract between a risk-averse agent and a risk-neutral principal when the agent's action is subject to moral hazard and the principal is free to propose a new contract after the agent has chosen his effort level but before the corresponding outcome is revealed.In this setting any optimal contract is equivalent to one that is "renegotiation-proof." A renegotiation-proof contract that induces the agent to choose high effort levels by promising a higher payment following good outcomes must also induce the agent to choose lower effort levels with sufficiently high probability that the contract would not be renegotiated.We show that for a range of utility functions for the agent, including exponential and logarithmic forms, the cost-minimizing renegotiation-proof contract for a given distribution of efforts is the same as the cost-minimizing contract for that distribution under commitment.Thus, the force of the renegotiation-proof constraint is not to change the way that given distributions are implemented, but rather to change which distributions are feasible.However, if the agent has constant relative risk aversion lower than one, the principal may prefer to give the agent an ex-ante rent in order to relax the renegotiation-proofness constraint, so that the optimal contract may differ from, that under commitment not only in the choice of distribution but also in the way that distribution is implemented.Our theory may shed some light on why compensation of managers and contractors is frequently insensitive to the information obtained after the relationship is terminated, and why executives have considerable discretion to adjust the riskiness of their compensation.1.