A specific bargaining game is studied, motivated by the speech-making, billproposing, and bill-vetoing observed in legislative processes. The game has two players, a chooser and a proposer, with the preferences of the chooser not known to the proposer. The chooser starts the game by talking. Then the proposer proposes an outcome, which the chooser accepts or vetoes. Only two kinds of perfect equilibria exist. In the more interesting kind the chooser tells the proposer which of two sets contains his type. Two proposals are possibly elicited, a compromise proposal and the proposer's favorite proposal. Ironically, only the compromise proposal is ever vetoed.

This paper studies moral hazard contracts that may be renegotiated after an agent chooses an unobservable effort. Unlike in previous models, a contract here contains only one compensation scheme, and the agent has all the bargaining power in the renegotiation stage. Using a relatively weak forward-induction refinement, all equilibria are shown tb be (second-best) efficient. Renegotiation occurs in every equilibrium. If the effort set is rich, the only equilibrium initial contract is a sales contract, i.e., a scheme which sells the project to the agent. This captures the idea that a party (the principal) who has an inherently weak renegotiation position will sometimes insist on a simple initial contract.

This paper addresses the First Theorem of Welfare Economics in a moral hazard environment. An entrepreneur sells equity in a firm which he supplies with an unobservable, costly input. How much equity he retains determines his incentives and is observed by investors. The investors have rational expectaions which cause the equity price to increase in the amount of equity the entrepreneur retains. This gives the entrepreneur an incentive to retain equity and hence supply input. The entrepreneur may also be bound by an explicit incentive contract. In this framework, not all competitive equilibria are efficient, as defined relative to the moral hazard constraint. However, equilibria can be inefficient only if the entrepreneur's optimal input is nonunique or exhibits positive income effects.

[A model is constructed in which a potential entrant uses prices to make inferences about industry conditions. Stochastic demand shocks occur after the incumbent firm's action, so that prices reveal only statistical information about the incumbent's private information. The equilibrium differs from standard signalling equilibria in that it can be unique, it depends on prior beliefs, and it is rich in comparative statics. Conditions are obtained for entry threats to result in limit pricing, lower entry probabilities, and lower expected profits for potential entrants.]

This paper shows in two ways that the degree to which free-riding diminishes the performance of deterministic partnerships may be less than has been generally thought. First, a necessary and sufficient condition is provided for a partnership to sustain full efficiency. It implies that many non-trivial partnerships sustain efficiency, such as generic ones with finite action spaces, and neoclassical ones with Leontief technologies. Second, approximate efficiency is shown to be achievable in a large class of partnerships, including ones with smooth and monotonic production and disutility functions. Approximate efficiency is achieved by mixed-strategy equilibria: one partner takes, with small probability, an inefficient action. The degree to which efficiency is approximated is restricted only by the amount of liability the partners can bear. Nonetheless, their equilibrium payments are not arbitrarily large.

John A. Ferejohn, David M. Grether, Steven A. Matthews, Edward W. Packel; Continuous-Valued Binary Decision Procedures, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol