Commitment and Randomization in Communication

Emir Kamenica and Xiao Lin

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: When does a Sender, in a Sender-Receiver game, strictly value commitment? In a setting with finite actions and finite states, we establish that, generically, Sender values commitment if and only if he values randomization. In other words, commitment has no value if and only if a partitional experiment is optimal under commitment. Moreover, if Sender's preferred cheap-talk equilibrium necessarily involves randomization, then Sender values commitment. We also ask: how often (i.e., for what share of preference profiles) does commitment have no value? For any prior, any independent, atomless distribution of preferences, and any state space: if there are $\left|A\right|$ actions, the likelihood that commitment has no value is at least $\frac{1}{\left|A\right|^{\left|A\right|}}$. As the number of states grows large, this likelihood converges precisely to $\frac{1}{\left|A\right|^{\left|A\right|}}$.

Date: 2024-10
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-des, nep-exp, nep-gth and nep-mic
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.17503 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:2410.17503

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators (help@arxiv.org).