TY - CHAP
T1 - When is reputation bad?
AU - Ely, Jeffrey
AU - Fudenberg, Drew
AU - Levine, David
N1 - Funding Information:
We are grateful to Adam Szeidl and Maria Goltsman for careful proofreading, to Juuso Valimaki for helpful conversations, and to National Science Foundation Grants SES-9730181, SES-9986170, SES-9985462, SES-0112018, SES-0314713, and SES-0426199 for financial support.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2009 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2008/1/1
Y1 - 2008/1/1
N2 - In traditional reputation models, the ability to build a reputation is good for the long-run player. In [Ely, 1., Valimaki, 1., 2003. Bad reputation. NAJ Econ. 4, 2; http://www.najecon.org/v4.htm. Quart. J. Econ. 118 (2003) 785-814], Ely and Valimaki give an example in which reputation is unambiguously bad. This paper characterizes a class of games in which that insight holds. The key to bad reputation is that participation is optional for the short-run players, and that every action of the long-run player that makes the short-run players want to participate has a chance of being interpreted as a signal that the long-run player is “bad.” We allow a broad set of commitment types, allowing many types, including the “Stackelberg type” used to prove positive results on reputation. Although reputation need not be bad if the probability of the Stackelberg type is too high, the relative probability of the Stackelberg type can be high when all commitment types are unlikely.
AB - In traditional reputation models, the ability to build a reputation is good for the long-run player. In [Ely, 1., Valimaki, 1., 2003. Bad reputation. NAJ Econ. 4, 2; http://www.najecon.org/v4.htm. Quart. J. Econ. 118 (2003) 785-814], Ely and Valimaki give an example in which reputation is unambiguously bad. This paper characterizes a class of games in which that insight holds. The key to bad reputation is that participation is optional for the short-run players, and that every action of the long-run player that makes the short-run players want to participate has a chance of being interpreted as a signal that the long-run player is “bad.” We allow a broad set of commitment types, allowing many types, including the “Stackelberg type” used to prove positive results on reputation. Although reputation need not be bad if the probability of the Stackelberg type is too high, the relative probability of the Stackelberg type can be high when all commitment types are unlikely.
KW - Commitment
KW - Game theory
KW - Reputation
KW - Stackelberg
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84970949875&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84970949875&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1142/9789812818478_0010
DO - 10.1142/9789812818478_0010
M3 - Chapter
AN - SCOPUS:84970949875
SN - 9812818464
SN - 9789812818461
SP - 177
EP - 206
BT - A Long-Run Collaboration on Long-Run Games
PB - World Scientific Publishing Co.
ER -