Unobservable Investment and the Hold‐Up Problem

We study a two‐person bargaining problem in which the buyer may invest and increase his valuation of the object before bargaining. We show that if all offers are made by the seller and the time between offers is small, then the buyer invests efficiently and the seller extracts all of the surplus. Hence, bargaining with frequently repeated offers remedies the hold‐up problem even when the agent who makes the relation‐specific investment has no bargaining power and contracting is not possible. We consider alternative formulations with uncertain gains from trade or two‐sided investment.     

Self‐Control and the Theory of Consumption

To study the behavior of agents who are susceptible to temptation in infinite horizon consumption problems under uncertainty, we define and characterize dynamic self‐control (DSC) preferences. DSC preferences are recursive and separable. In economies with DSC agents, equilibria exist but may be inefficient; in such equilibria, steady state consumption is independent of initial endowments and increases in self‐control. Increasing the preference for commitment while keeping self‐control constant increases the equity premium. Removing nonbinding constraints changes equilibrium allocations and prices. Debt contracts can be sustained even if the only feasible punishment for default is the termination of the contract.     

Expected Uncertain Utility Theory

We introduce and analyze expected uncertain utility (EUU) theory. A prior and an interval utility characterize an EUU decision maker. The decision maker transforms each uncertain prospect into an interval‐valued prospect that assigns an interval of prizes to each state. She then ranks prospects according to their expected interval utilities. We define uncertainty aversion for EUU, use the EUU model to address the Ellsberg Paradox and other ambiguity evidence, and relate EUU theory to existing models.     

Temptation and Self‐Control

We study a two‐period model where ex ante inferior choice may tempt the decision‐maker in the second period. Individuals have preferences over sets of alternatives that represent second period choices. Our axioms yield a representation that identifies the individual's commitment ranking, temptation ranking, and cost of self‐control. An agent has a preference for commitment if she strictly prefers a subset of alternatives to the set itself. An agent has self‐control if she resists temptation and chooses an option with higher ex ante utility. We introduce comparative measures of preference for commitment and self‐control and relate them to our representations.