C73 | Macro Paper Warehouse

Collusion with Optimal Information Disclosure

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

This paper asks how a third-party intermediary (an “algorithm”) that observes market demand or costs superior to competing firms should optimally disclose that information to maximize the firms’ collusive profit in a repeated Bertrand competition setting. The motivation is the rise of algorithmic pricing intermediaries such as RealPage in apartment rentals, A2i Systems in retail gasoline, and Rainmaker in hotel rooms, as well as offline cartel facilitators like AC-Treuhand.

The model extends the canonical Rotemberg–Saloner (1986) repeated Bertrand framework with stochastic demand. The key technical assumption is that firm profit is affine in the unknown state s, so expected profit depends only on the expected state. This holds for binary states, linear demand with unknown intercept (D(p,s) = s − p), and linear demand with unknown per-unit cost. The algorithm observes s and commits to a known disclosure policy mapping s to a public signal. The solution concept is pure-strategy subgame-perfect equilibrium, and the paper solves for the disclosure policy and equilibrium that jointly maximize collusive profit.

The main result (Theorem 1) is that the unique optimal disclosure policy is upper censorship: there is a cutoff ŝ such that demand states s < ŝ are disclosed and result in the corresponding monopoly price p^m(s), while demand states s ≥ ŝ are pooled — only the event {s ≥ ŝ} is disclosed — and result in the monopoly price for the mean concealed state, p^m(s*), where s* = E[s | s ≥ ŝ]. The reduction to a static information design problem (Lemma 1) is the key technical step: optimal collusive profit equals V*, the greatest fixed point of V = max_{G ∈ MPC(F)} E_G[min{π^m(s), δV/((1−δ)(n−1))}]. The “capped monopoly profit” min{π^m(s), π^max} is convex-then-concave in s, and classical results from the static information design literature (Kolotilin 2018; Dworczak and Martini 2019) then imply upper censorship is uniquely optimal.

Two features of the optimal equilibrium are notable. First, prices are rigid (constant at p^m(s*)) whenever s ≥ ŝ — the opposite of Rotemberg–Saloner’s “price wars during booms.” The logic is that pooling high demand states with a lower average state is more profitable than cutting prices, because pooling reduces the current-period deviation gain without sacrificing as much on-path profit. Second, for demand states s ∈ (ŝ, s*), the equilibrium price p^m(s*) exceeds the monopoly price p^m(s) — supra-monopoly pricing occurs for a range of intermediate states. Monopoly pricing is attainable at each such state in isolation, but recommending the higher price p^m(s*) is necessary to make the pooling incentive-compatible at states s > s*.

Comparing to full disclosure, Proposition 1 shows that optimal disclosure leads to strictly higher prices at every demand state, and hence unambiguously lower consumer surplus. Proposition 3 shows that improving the algorithm’s accuracy (a mean-preserving spread of F) reduces expected consumer surplus whenever consumer surplus under monopoly pricing is concave in s — a natural condition. This result is more pessimistic than prior work (Sugaya–Wolitzky 2018; Miklos-Thal–Tucker 2019), which found ambiguous effects because those papers assumed full disclosure.

Comparative statics (Proposition 2): fewer firms or a higher discount factor δ increases collusive profit V* and makes prices more flexible (raises ŝ). Collusion is impossible if and only if δ < (n−1)/n, the same threshold as under full disclosure.

Extensions maintain the core results. With Markov (persistent) demand (Section 4 / Theorem 2), upper censorship remains optimal but the cutoff ŝ(s) depends on last-period demand s: under positive serial correlation, ŝ(s) is decreasing in s, so the algorithm discloses less information following high demand. With differentiated products under a symmetric linear demand system (Section 5 / Theorem 3), the optimal policy censors an intermediate interval [ŝ_L, ŝ_H] and discloses both the lowest and highest demand states, because at high states the absence of an upper bound on equilibrium profit makes disclosure with price-cutting optimal.

Q: What is the core research question and why is it policy-relevant? A: The paper asks how an informed intermediary should optimally disclose demand or cost information to competing firms to maximize their collusive profit. It is directly motivated by antitrust cases against RealPage (sued by the US DOJ in August 2024), A2i Systems/Kalibrate, and Rainmaker, all of which gather market data from competing firms and recommend prices. The theory also applies to offline facilitators like AC-Treuhand, prosecuted by the European Commission for disclosing competitively sensitive information.

Q: What is the affinity assumption and why does it matter? A: The paper assumes that firm profit π(p, s) is affine (linearly increasing) in the demand or cost state s for each price p. This implies that expected profit for any distribution over states equals profit evaluated at the expected state: E[π(p,s)] = π(p, E[s]). As a consequence, any disclosure policy is equivalent, from a profit standpoint, to choosing a distribution G of the firms’ posterior mean beliefs over s, and G must be a mean-preserving contraction of the prior F (by Blackwell 1953). The assumption is satisfied for binary states, linear demand with unknown intercept, and linear demand with unknown cost.

Q: What is the key reduction result (Lemma 1) and what does it achieve? A: Lemma 1 reduces the problem of finding an optimal repeated-game equilibrium to a static information design problem. Optimal collusive profit equals V*, the greatest fixed point of V = max_{G ∈ MPC(F)} E_G[min{π^m(s), δV/((1−δ)(n−1))}], and this is attained by a symmetric, stationary, grim-trigger equilibrium. The reduction works because, under Bertrand competition, static deviation gains are proportional to on-path payoffs, creating a one-to-one correspondence that allows the repeated-game constraint to be folded into a single-period objective.

Q: Why is upper censorship the uniquely optimal disclosure policy? A: The static information design problem has a “capped monopoly profit” objective: min{π^m(s), π^max}, where π^max = δV*/((1−δ)(n−1)) is the maximum per-period profit that satisfies incentive constraints. Because π^m(s) is convex (as the maximum of affine functions) and the cap π^max is constant, the overall objective is convex for s below the cap and constant (then concave) above it — i.e., convex-then-concave in s. Classical results for linear information design (Kolotilin 2018; Dworczak and Martini 2019) imply that the unique optimal policy for a convex-then-concave objective is upper censorship.

Q: What is the supra-monopoly pricing result and why does it arise? A: For demand states s ∈ (ŝ, s*), the equilibrium price is p^m(s*) > p^m(s), meaning firms charge above the monopoly price for the current state. This arises because the pooling policy must recommend a single price for all states s ≥ ŝ, and the recommended price is p^m(s*) where s* = E[s | s ≥ ŝ]. At intermediate states s ∈ (ŝ, s*), this price exceeds the local monopoly price. The algorithm accepts lower profit at these states because it is necessary to maintain the pooled recommendation at higher states where monopoly pricing would otherwise require a price cut.

Q: How does optimal disclosure compare to full disclosure in terms of consumer surplus? A: Proposition 1 shows that collusive prices under optimal disclosure are strictly higher at every demand state compared to full disclosure (Rotemberg–Saloner). In Rotemberg–Saloner, high demand states trigger price cuts (“price wars during booms”) to deter deviation; under optimal disclosure, high states are pooled and prices are instead rigid at p^m(s*). Because prices are higher at all states, consumer surplus is unambiguously lower under optimal disclosure.

Q: What does Proposition 3 say about the effect of algorithmic accuracy on consumer surplus? A: Proposition 3 states that if consumer surplus under monopoly pricing, CS(s), is concave in s, then a mean-preserving spread of F (i.e., improved algorithmic accuracy) reduces expected consumer surplus. This result is more pessimistic than prior work by Sugaya–Wolitzky (2018) and Miklos-Thal–Tucker (2019), which found ambiguous effects. The difference is that those papers assumed full disclosure, so better accuracy tightened incentive constraints and sometimes forced price cuts. Under optimal selective disclosure, a more accurate algorithm always raises average prices because the algorithm withholds information that would have forced price cuts.

Q: What are the comparative statics with respect to the number of firms and the discount factor? A: Proposition 2 establishes that a decrease in the number of firms n or an increase in the discount factor δ increases collusive profit V* and makes collusive prices more flexible (raises ŝ). The intuition for fewer firms making prices more flexible is that with fewer firms, incentive constraints bind for a narrower range of demand states, so less pooling is needed. Collusion is impossible if and only if δ < (n−1)/n, the same threshold as under full disclosure.

Q: How does the model generate empirically testable predictions distinct from other collusion models? A: The model predicts: (1) the equilibrium price distribution has support on an interval [p^m(s_bar), p^m(ŝ)] plus a single mass point at the higher price p^m(s*); (2) prices are pro-cyclical overall but rigidly fixed at p^m(s*) for all but the lowest demand states; (3) the gap p^m(s) − p(s) is non-monotone — zero at low states, negative (supra-monopoly) at intermediate states, and positive at high states; (4) prices are more flexible when firms are more patient or fewer. The rigid high price combined with a flexible interval of lower prices is described as a distinctive collusive marker not present in other models.

Q: How does the model relate to the empirical literature testing Green–Porter versus Rotemberg–Saloner? A: Rotemberg–Saloner predicts counter-cyclical prices (price wars during booms), while Green–Porter predicts pro-cyclical prices. Empirical tests (e.g., Porter 1983, Ellison 1994) have typically found pro-cyclical prices, favoring Green–Porter. The present model generates pro-cyclical prices through a different mechanism — perfect monitoring plus selectively disclosed demand information — showing that pro-cyclical prices are consistent with perfect monitoring when the information intermediary optimally pools high demand states. The paper suggests that distinguishing the theories requires estimating the gap between price and monopoly price over the cycle: under Green–Porter, collusion succeeds better in high demand states; under this model, collusion succeeds better in low demand states.

Q: What narrative evidence from the RealPage case corroborates the model’s predictions? A: The US DOJ complaint against RealPage states that “in down markets… [RealPage] instills pricing discipline in landlords, curbing normal fully independent competitive reactions by substituting them with interdependent decision-making,” and that RealPage advertised that its AI helps clients “avoid the race to the bottom in down markets.” This is consistent with the model’s prediction of flexible monopoly prices at low demand states and a rigid, supra-monopolistic price in normal times. The Kumatori Contractors Cooperative case (studied by Kawai, Nakabayashi, and Ortner 2024) corroborates the censorship result: that organization took drastic steps to limit bidders’ information about costs on the largest projects — exactly the states where deviation is most tempting.

Q: How do results change with persistent (Markov) demand? A: Theorem 2 shows that upper censorship remains uniquely optimal with Markov demand, but the cutoff ŝ(s) now depends on last-period demand s. Under positive serial correlation, ŝ(s) is decreasing in s: the algorithm discloses less information after high demand because firms are more optimistic and thus more tempted to deviate. Under negative serial correlation, ŝ(s) is increasing. The optimal collusive price is no longer always equal to the monopoly price for the disclosed mean demand, and the expected price conditional on last-period demand can be countercyclical (similar to Rotemberg–Saloner), even though the current-period price is always monotone in current demand.

Q: How does the optimal disclosure policy change with differentiated products? A: With a symmetric linear demand system (Section 5, Theorem 3), the optimal policy censors an intermediate interval [ŝ_L, ŝ_H] and discloses both the lowest and the highest demand states. At high demand states s > ŝ_H, the algorithm discloses the state and recommends a price below monopoly (to satisfy incentive constraints), because with differentiated goods there is no upper bound on equilibrium profit and profit is convex in s at high states, making disclosure with price-cutting optimal. Mathematically, the capped monopoly profit is piecewise-convex rather than convex-then-concave, so the optimal policy is intermediate-interval censorship rather than upper censorship. The Appendix A version extends to general demand systems and capacity constraints with the same qualitative logic.

Q: What are the main limitations and directions for future work acknowledged by the authors? A: The paper identifies three main limitations. First, if profit is not affine in s (i.e., expected profit depends on more than the mean state), the information design problem becomes non-linear and upper censorship is typically suboptimal, though it remains approximately optimal when the problem is close to linear. Second, the model assumes the algorithm’s objective is to maximize industry profit; if the intermediary is a profit-maximizing seller of software (as in Harrington 2022), the objective may instead be to maximize the profit differential between adopters and non-adopters. Third, the model assumes all firms use the algorithm; allowing partial adoption would require modeling firms’ incentives to subscribe. The paper notes that incorporating these considerations “could be an interesting direction for future research.”

Upper Censorship (disclosure policy): A disclosure policy in which demand states below a cutoff ŝ are revealed to firms (along with the corresponding monopoly price recommendation), while states above ŝ are pooled — only the event {s ≥ ŝ} is disclosed — with a single monopoly price recommendation p^m(s*) for the mean concealed state s* = E[s | s ≥ ŝ]. This is the uniquely optimal disclosure policy in the baseline model.

Capped Monopoly Profit: The per-period profit objective in the reduced static information design problem: min{π^m(s), π^max}, where π^max = δV*/((1−δ)(n−1)) is the maximum industry profit attainable in a single period without violating incentive constraints. This function is convex-then-concave in s, which drives the optimality of upper censorship.

Supra-Monopoly Pricing: Equilibrium prices that exceed the monopoly price for the realized demand state. In the model, this occurs for states s ∈ (ŝ, s*), where the algorithm’s pooled recommendation p^m(s*) is above the local monopoly price p^m(s). It arises because the pooled recommendation must be incentive-compatible at the highest concealed states.

Price Rigidity: The feature of the optimal equilibrium in which the collusive price is constant at p^m(s*) for all demand states s ≥ ŝ. The algorithm achieves this by withholding information about high demand states, preventing the “price wars during booms” predicted by Rotemberg–Saloner (1986) under full disclosure.

Algorithmic Accuracy: In the paper’s terms, the informativeness of the algorithm’s signal about s, formalized as the precision of the distribution F. Improving accuracy corresponds to a mean-preserving spread of F (Blackwell 1953). A more accurate algorithm always increases collusive profit; under the concavity condition on consumer surplus, it also reduces expected consumer surplus.

Mean-Preserving Contraction (MPC(F)): The set of distributions G of firms’ posterior mean beliefs over s that are consistent with Bayesian updating of the prior F. By Blackwell (1953), a disclosure policy is feasible if and only if it induces a distribution G ∈ MPC(F). This is the feasibility constraint in the static information design problem.

Affinity in the state: The assumption that π(p, s) is affine (linearly increasing) in s for each price p. This implies E[π(p,s)] = π(p, E[s]), so expected profit is determined entirely by the expected state, enabling the reduction of the disclosure problem to choosing a distribution of posterior means.

Dynamic Concern for Misspecification

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Layer 1 — Overview

Research Question

This paper asks how an agent who fears that none of their probabilistic models is the correct description of the data-generating process (DGP) should update that fear as evidence accumulates, and what long-run behavior such an agent exhibits. The central contribution is making the concern for misspecification endogenous: the better the agent’s structured models explain past observations, the less concerned the agent becomes.

Decision Criterion

The agent posits a finite-dimensional parametric set of structured models Θ, holds a prior µ over Θ, and evaluates each action according to an average robust control criterion. This criterion takes a weighted average (over models) of robust control assessments, where each assessment penalizes expected utility for probability distributions that deviate from the structured model in terms of relative entropy, scaled by a misspecification concern parameter λ > 0. A standard subjective expected utility maximizer is the limiting case as λ → 0 (no concern), and a maxmin agent is approached as λ → ∞.

Endogenous Misspecification Concern

The concern parameter λ is updated each period as a function of the likelihood ratio test (LRT) statistic of the structured models against unstructured alternatives, scaled by a time-normalizing sequence βₜ: λ(hₜ) = LRT(hₜ, Θ) / (2βₜ). The sequence βₜ determines how demanding the agent is in evaluating model fit.

Taxonomy of Agent Types

Three types emerge based on the speed of βₜ:

Statistician type (βₜ = ct, linear): applies a time scaling that keeps the LRT asymptotically informative about the degree of misspecification. This is the unique type satisfying both safety (long-run average payoff at least ε-close to the maxmin guarantee, almost surely) and consistency under almost correct specification (no ε-regret when misspecification is small).
Lenient type (t = o(βₜ)): attributes unexplained evidence to sampling variability; corresponds to the Law of Large Numbers intuition.
Demanding type (βₜ = o(t)): overly penalizes small discrepancies, analogous to the Law of Small Numbers fallacy (Tversky and Kahneman, 1971).

Standard SEU maximization fails safety; robust control with an invariant λ (Hansen and Sargent, 2001; 2022) fails consistency under almost correct specification.

Long-Run Convergence Results (Theorem 1)

For a misspecified agent (no θ ∈ Θ with qθ_{a*} = p*_{a*}), the nature of the limit action a* depends on the agent type:

Lenient type: a* is a Berk-Nash equilibrium — an SEU best reply to beliefs supported on the models with minimum relative entropy from the true DGP.
Demanding type: a* is a maxmin equilibrium — a worst-case best reply to all models absolutely continuous with respect to the true DGP.
Statistician type: if behavior converges, a* is a c-robust equilibrium — a robust control best reply to beliefs on the relative entropy minimizers, with the concern for misspecification endogenously set at minθ R(p*{a*} || qθ{a*}) / c.

For a correctly specified agent (Proposition 2), every limit action is a self-confirming equilibrium, regardless of the agent type.

Cycles and Limit Frequency (Section 4, Theorem 2)

The statistician type’s behavior need not converge. In natural settings, the agent cycles between actions: playing a “safe” action whose consequences are well-explained by Θ reduces concern for misspecification, eventually leading to a riskier action whose poorly-explained consequences raise concern again, inducing a return to the safe action. The paper proves that every limit frequency (empirical distribution over actions) is a mixed c-robust equilibrium — a generalization that allows mixing while tying the concern for misspecification to the frequency-weighted average relative entropy of each action.

Empirical Applications

Monetary policy cycles (Sargent 1999, 2008): In a central bank model where the true DGP includes increased inflation variability under aggressive policy (a feature absent from the bank’s structured models), no pure c-robust equilibrium exists for small c. The model predicts persistent cycles between conservative and aggressive policy. The frequency of the conservative policy is increasing in the strength of the exploitable inflation-unemployment trade-off (θ₁π + θ₁a).
Labor supply under complex tax schedules (Rees-Jones and Taubinsky, 2020): Agents with a “schmeduling” heuristic (linearizing the tax schedule) are misspecified. Berk-Nash equilibrium predicts these agents exert excess effort, with the bias increasing in the complexity (convexity) of the tax code. The c-robust equilibrium attenuates this bias: conditional on the equilibrium, minθ R(p*_a || qθ_a) > 0, so agents maintain positive concern for misspecification and pull back from the biased recommendation. The paper rationalizes the empirical finding that approximately 40% of agents hold the schmeduling belief but only about 20% fewer agents act on it — consistent with endogenous concern reducing the behavioral impact of the biased model.

Axiomatization (Section 5)

The paper axiomatizes the static average robust control criterion (Theorem 3) using: a Variational Axiom (from Maccheroni, Marinacci, and Rustichini, 2006a), a Structured Savage axiom (Sure-Thing Principle for bets on the model identity), an Intramodel Sure-Thing Principle (STP for bets conditional on the model), and Uniform Misspecification Concern (the agent is equally concerned about misspecification regardless of which model is identified as best-fitting). Three additional dynamic axioms characterize preference evolution: Constant Preference Invariance (utility index stable over time), Dynamic Consistency over Models (Bayesian updating over structured models), and Q-Likelihood (misspecification concern increases in the LRT). A novel Asymptotic Frequentism axiom characterizes the statistician type: preferences must become arbitrarily similar (in a precise quantitative sense) after sufficiently long histories with the same outcome frequency.

In depth

Q1. What is the average robust control criterion and how does it generalize prior decision criteria?

A: An agent evaluates action a by averaging over structured models θ a robust control assessment: for each θ, minimize expected utility over probability distributions within relative entropy distance (penalized by 1/λ) of qθ_a, then integrate over θ with prior µ. This nests SEU (λ → 0, perfect trust in models), standard robust control of Hansen and Sargent (2001) (µ is Dirac, single benchmark model), and maxmin expected utility of Gilboa and Schmeidler (λ → ∞). The key extension is allowing µ to be nondegenerate, so the agent is simultaneously uncertain about the best-fitting model and about whether any model is exact.

Q2. What is the role of the likelihood ratio test statistic in driving misspecification concern?

A: The LRT statistic compares the maximum likelihood of the structured models against the best unstructured alternative. It diverges almost surely when the agent is misspecified, regardless of how close the structured models are to the true DGP. The concern parameter λ(hₜ) = LRT(hₜ, Θ) / (2βₜ) uses a time-scaling sequence βₜ to keep this statistic interpretable. Without scaling, a misspecified agent’s concern would always explode to infinity.

Q3. Why does linear time scaling (βₜ = ct) uniquely characterize the statistician type as rational?

A: Proposition 1 establishes two properties: (1) ε-safety — every βₜ = ct-optimal policy achieves average payoff at least ε below the maxmin guarantee, almost surely; (2) ε-consistency under almost correct specification — for DGPs sufficiently close to Θ, the agent avoids long-run regret. Part 2 of Proposition 1 shows that no βₜ with βₜ = o(t) or t = o(βₜ) satisfies both properties simultaneously. SEU fails safety; invariant-λ robust control fails consistency.

Q4. What is a c-robust equilibrium and how does it differ from a Berk-Nash equilibrium?

A: A Berk-Nash equilibrium (Esponda and Pouzo, 2016) requires the action to be an SEU best reply to beliefs supported on the relative entropy minimizers of the true DGP. A c-robust equilibrium requires the same support condition but with the best reply taken under the average robust control criterion, where the concern for misspecification λ equals minθ R(p*{a*} || qθ{a*}) / c — that is, the minimum relative entropy scaled by 1/c. The endogenous λ is positive whenever the agent is misspecified, so the agent does not fully trust even the best-fitting model.

Q5. How does the paper explain that misspecified lenient types converge to Berk-Nash while demanding types converge to maxmin?

A: For the lenient type (t = o(βₜ)), the time scaling makes the concern for misspecification converge to 0 (the LRT grows slower than βₜ relative to t), so the agent effectively behaves as an SEU maximizer with beliefs on the KL-minimizing models — the Berk-Nash condition. For the demanding type (βₜ = o(t)), the LRT diverges relative to βₜ, so λ → ∞ and the agent’s preferences converge to worst-case evaluation over all models absolutely continuous with the true DGP — the maxmin condition. These are Theorem 1, parts 1 and 2.

Q6. Why does the statistician type exhibit cycles rather than convergence?

A: Section 4 and Corollary 1 show in the monetary policy application that no pure c-robust equilibrium exists for small c. Intuitively, the conservative policy (a=0) is a best reply to a high misspecification concern, but it produces outcomes well-explained by Θ, which drives concern down. The aggressive policy (a=1) is a best reply to a low concern, but it generates increased inflation variability not captured in Θ, which drives concern up sharply. There is no fixed point that is self-sustaining, so the agent cycles. Theorem 2 shows that the empirical frequency of actions still converges to a mixed c-robust equilibrium.

Q7. What are the quantitative comparative statics for the monetary policy cycles?

A: Corollary 1 establishes that there exists a threshold c̄ > 0 such that for all c ≤ c̄: (1) no pure c-robust equilibrium exists; (2) a mixed c-robust equilibrium exists; and (3) in the maximal and minimal equilibria, the frequency of the conservative policy α*(0) is increasing in θ₁π + θ₁a — a larger exploitable trade-off between inflation and unemployment implies more time spent on the aggressive policy.

Q8. How does the model rationalize the Rees-Jones and Taubinsky (2020) labor supply finding?

A: Rees-Jones and Taubinsky (2020) find that approximately 40% of agents have incentive-compatible beliefs consistent with the schmeduling heuristic (linearizing a convex tax schedule), but approximately 20% fewer agents act according to that heuristic. In a Berk-Nash equilibrium, the schmeduling agent exerts excess effort relative to the optimum; the more convex the tax code, the larger the excess. In a c-robust equilibrium, the agent retains a positive misspecification concern proportional to the deviation between the convex tax schedule and the linear approximation. Higher effort levels are more exposed to uncertainty in the marginal rate (the misspecified term θ+ε multiplies a higher average income z), so the concern for misspecification provides a natural force that reduces effort below the Berk-Nash prediction. The paper notes this finding is also consistent with an alternative interpretation in Rees-Jones and Taubinsky where all agents hold schmeduling beliefs but under-respond behaviorally.

Q9. What is the mixed c-robust equilibrium and why does it always exist?

A: A mixed c-robust equilibrium is a mixed action α* ∈ Δ(A) such that beliefs ν are supported on the relative entropy minimizers Θ(α*) — computed as the parameter minimizing the α*-weighted average relative entropy across actions — and every action in the support of α* is a best reply under the average robust control criterion with λ = minθ Σ_a α*(a) R(p*_a || qθ_a) / c. Proposition 3 proves existence by mapping this fixed-point condition to a Nash equilibrium in an auxiliary game between the agent and two adversarial Nature players, then invoking Reny (1999) on that game. A pure c-robust equilibrium need not exist, but mixing over actions allows the concern for misspecification to be calibrated to the frequency of poorly-explained actions.

Q10. How does Theorem 2 formally connect cycles to mixed c-robust equilibria?

A: Theorem 2 states that if βₜ = ct for all t and α* is a βₜ-limit frequency (i.e., the empirical action distribution converges to α* with positive probability under some optimal policy), then α* is a mixed c-robust equilibrium. The intuition is that when α* places weight on both a well-explained action and a poorly-explained action, the time-averaged relative entropy stabilizes at a fixed level, producing a stable endogenous concern for misspecification that makes the agent asymptotically indifferent between the actions in the support — sharply reducing the incentive to break the cycle.

Q11. What does the axiomatization contribute beyond the learning results?

A: The axiomatization (Section 5, Theorem 3) provides behavioral foundations observable from choices, without assuming the internal LRT mechanism. Two primary axioms pin down the average robust control criterion within the variational class: Structured Savage (Sure-Thing Principle for bets over model identity) and Uniform Misspecification Concern (equal concern for misspecification regardless of which model is revealed as best-fitting). Dynamic Consistency over Models pins down Bayesian updating. Q-Likelihood axiomatizes that the concern for misspecification is ordinally increasing in the LRT. The novel Asymptotic Frequentism axiom (Axiom 9) pins down the quantitative speed of adjustment: long histories with the same empirical frequency must induce asymptotically similar preferences, and Proposition 5 shows this implies λ_{hₜ} / (LRT(hₜ, Q) / (2tₙ)) converges to a finite limit — exactly the statistician type’s linear scaling.

Q12. What is the correlation between behavioral biases that the model predicts?

A: The paper derives three novel empirical predictions about the cross-sectional and time-series correlation of uncertainty attitudes: (1) long-run uncertainty aversion positively correlates with initial misspecification and with belief in the Law of Small Numbers; (2) these correlations are causal — repeated model failures and overly demanding evaluation induce a shift toward cautious behavior; (3) even holding misspecification and probability reasoning fixed, limit uncertainty attitudes are stochastic, depending on whether the limit action’s outcomes are well-explained by the structured models.

Q13. How does Example 2 (Correlation Neglect) show that endogenous concern can amplify rather than attenuate biases?

A: In a double auction, a buyer who mistakenly treats their own valuation and the ask price as independent (Correlation Neglect, Esponda, 2008) bids below the optimum in Berk-Nash equilibrium. In a c-robust equilibrium, the positive correlation between valuations and prices produces a strictly positive minθ R(p*{a*} || qθ{a*}), so the agent maintains misspecification concern. Since lower bids are accepted with lower probability (and thus are less sensitive to model misspecification), the endogenous concern drives the agent to bid even lower — amplifying the bias rather than attenuating it. This example illustrates that the direction of the correction depends on the geometry of how the misspecification interacts with the payoff structure.

Key Concepts

Average Robust Control Criterion: The decision criterion proposed in the paper. An agent evaluates action a by taking the expectation over structured models θ (with prior µ) of min_{p_a ∈ Δ(Y)} [E_{p_a}[u(a,y)] + (1/λ) R(p_a || qθ_a)]. This is a weighted average of robust control assessments, each penalizing distributions that deviate from a structured model in relative entropy. The parameter λ > 0 governs the intensity of misspecification concern, with SEU as the limit at λ → 0 and maxmin at λ → ∞.

Endogenous Misspecification Concern: Unlike prior robust control models where λ is fixed or set externally, here λ(hₜ) = LRT(hₜ, Θ) / (2βₜ) is a function of how well the structured models explain the observed history hₜ via the likelihood ratio test statistic. The better the models explain past data, the smaller λ becomes and the less the agent hedges.

Statistician Type: An agent who scales the likelihood ratio test statistic with a linear time sequence βₜ = ct for some c > 0. This is the unique agent type satisfying both ε-safety (guaranteed long-run average payoff above the maxmin guarantee minus ε) and ε-consistency under almost correct specification (no long-run regret when misspecification is small). The statistician type’s linear scaling is the only one for which the LRT statistic retains asymptotic informativeness about the degree of misspecification.

c-Robust Equilibrium: A fixed-point concept for the long-run behavior of the statistician type. Action a* is a c-robust equilibrium if it is an average robust control best reply to beliefs supported on Θ(a*) = argmin_θ R(p*{a*} || qθ{a*}), with misspecification concern λ = minθ R(p*{a*} || qθ{a*}) / c. This generalizes Berk-Nash equilibrium by incorporating an endogenous hedging motive proportional to the minimum relative entropy between the true DGP and the best structured model.

Mixed c-Robust Equilibrium: A generalization of c-robust equilibrium to mixed actions α* ∈ Δ(A) for environments where no pure equilibrium exists. The beliefs are supported on the models minimizing the α*-weighted average relative entropy, and the misspecification concern is tied to that average entropy. Every βₜ-limit frequency is a mixed c-robust equilibrium (Theorem 2). This concept characterizes the long-run time-average behavior when the statistician type cycles.

Law of Small Numbers (LSN) Type / Demanding Type: An agent for whom βₜ = o(t), meaning the time scaling grows sub-linearly. This agent is excessively sensitive to early model failures (analogously to the Law of Small Numbers fallacy of Tversky and Kahneman, 1971, where short-run frequencies are treated as the long-run norm). The long-run behavior of such a type converges to maxmin behavior rather than robust control.

Asymptotic Frequentism (Axiom 9): A novel axiom requiring that conditional preferences after sufficiently long histories with the same empirical outcome frequency must be arbitrarily similar (in a quantitative sense defined by measuring rods x, y, E) to a limiting preference. This axiom axiomatically pins down the statistician type’s linear time scaling: it implies that the ratio λ_{hₜ} / (LRT(hₜ, Q) / (2t)) converges to a finite limit c, exactly characterizing βₜ = ct.

Berk-Nash Equilibrium: The equilibrium concept (Esponda and Pouzo, 2016) that describes the long-run behavior of lenient (SEU) agents learning under misspecification. An action a* is a Berk-Nash equilibrium if it is an SEU best reply to beliefs supported on Θ(a*) — the KL-minimizing models — without any additional hedging against misspecification. The current paper shows that lenient types converge to Berk-Nash equilibria, while statistician types converge to c-robust equilibria that differ by incorporating a positive misspecification concern.

Policy Biases in a Model with Labor‐Market Frictions

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Layer 1 — Overview

Research Question

Dennis and Kirsanova ask whether shocks to labor-market matching efficiency and worker bargaining power pose a significant problem for monetary policy, and whether the inability to commit (discretion versus commitment) generates important stabilization bias in a model with labor-market matching frictions. They also examine how several popular simple monetary policy rules perform in response to these and other shocks.

Model and Methodology

The paper develops a fully nonlinear DSGE model featuring: (1) a goods market characterized by monopolistic competition and Rotemberg-style quadratic price-adjustment costs; and (2) a labor market characterized by a constant-returns-to-scale matching function (Mortensen-Pissarides) and Nash bargaining over wages and hours worked. Because the flex-price equilibrium is inefficient — owing to both monopolistic competition and the matching friction — a linear-quadratic approximation is not valid for the discretionary policy problem, and the authors solve the model using Smolyak sparse-grid methods with Chebyshev polynomial basis functions.

The model is calibrated to quarterly U.S. data. Key parameter values include: discount factor β = 0.99 (annualized real interest rate ≈ 4 percent), elasticity of substitution across goods ε = 11 (steady-state markup of 10 percent), price-adjustment cost φ = 80, quarterly separation rate δ = 0.12, job-finding rate f = 0.65 (delivering an employment rate close to 0.94 and an unemployment rate near 5.95 percent in steady state), elasticity of matching function with respect to unemployment ξ = 0.72, and workers’ mean bargaining power equal to ξ = 0.72 (satisfying the Hosios condition at steady state). Five AR(1) shocks are included: aggregate technology (persistence 0.95, standard deviation 0.008), matching efficiency (persistence 0.80, standard deviation 0.032), bargaining power (persistence 0.80, standard deviation 0.028), consumption preference (persistence 0.70, standard deviation 0.006), and elasticity of substitution (persistence 0.85, standard deviation 0.12).

Main Findings

The central finding is that optimal monetary policy — whether conducted under commitment (Ramsey) or discretion — is highly efficient at responding to labor-market shocks, producing impulse responses that closely replicate the flex-price equilibrium for real variables. Specifically, in response to matching efficiency shocks and bargaining power shocks, the commitment and discretionary equilibria both track the flex-price equilibrium closely for output, consumption, employment, tightness, and the real wage.

Discretion generates a pronounced inflation bias of approximately 1.82 percent per annum — large but not implausible — but does not generate a meaningful stabilization bias for the class of shocks studied (technology, matching efficiency, bargaining power, and consumption preference). The one exception is the elasticity of substitution shock (analogous to a markup shock in linearized models): for this shock, the impulse responses under discretion diverge noticeably from those under commitment, revealing a discretionary stabilization bias — consistent with conventional New Keynesian results.

Regarding simple rules, strict inflation targeting (SIT) performs closely in line with commitment and discretion for all shocks. The two Taylor-type rules — one responding to inflation and output growth, the other to inflation and the unemployment rate — generate substantially greater volatility in inflation and the nominal interest rate relative to optimal policy. The unemployment-gap Taylor rule is the worst performer among the three simple rules; nevertheless, all three simple rules produce household welfare outcomes close to those under optimal monetary policy. The suboptimality of the simple rules is most evident in nominal variables, particularly inflation and the nominal interest rate, and less evident in real variables — though labor-market inefficiencies under the Taylor-type rules do emerge in response to matching efficiency and bargaining power shocks, with hours worked and the real wage deviating noticeably from flex-price outcomes.

The probability of encountering the zero lower bound is, for all policies considered, considerably less than 0.5 percent across one million simulated observations, suggesting that ZLB concerns are not material for the shocks under study.

Scope Conditions

These results hold within the context of a model with a fixed labor force (no participation margin), balanced-budget fiscal authority, no capital accumulation, and Nash bargaining over both wages and hours. The Hosios condition is satisfied at steady state (though the authors report that relaxing it has little effect on results). The analysis abstracts from the zero lower bound constraint when solving the model.

In depth

Q1. What is the Hosios condition and what role does it play in this model?

The Hosios condition requires that workers’ bargaining power equal the elasticity of matches with respect to unemployment in the matching function (ξ = 0.72). When the condition holds, bargaining is efficient in the sense that the decentralized search equilibrium replicates the social planner’s allocation. The authors impose it at steady state (mean bargaining power & = ξ = 0.72) so that the flex-price equilibrium is distorted only by monopolistic competition, not by inefficient search. The authors state they also analyzed versions where the Hosios condition does not hold and found it had little effect on results.

Q2. How are matching efficiency shocks transmitted through the economy, and how does optimal policy respond?

An improvement in matching efficiency raises the rate at which vacancies are filled and the unemployed find jobs, increasing employment from existing vacancy and unemployment levels. Employment rises, unemployment falls, labor market tightness increases, and the real wage rises. Firms substitute toward more workers (extensive margin) and away from hours-per-worker (intensive margin), so hours worked per employee decline even as aggregate hours rise. Both commitment and discretion track the flex-price equilibrium closely for all these real variables. Some difference is visible in inflation: under discretion the real wage rises by more than under commitment, pushing real marginal costs and inflation higher in the short run.

Q3. How does a bargaining power shock affect the economy under optimal monetary policy?

An increase in worker bargaining power shifts the match surplus toward workers, raising real wages and hours worked per employee. Firms, receiving a smaller surplus share, post fewer vacancies and hire fewer workers, leading to a decline in employment, a fall in labor market tightness, and a rise in unemployment. The employment decline is large enough to lower household income, goods production, and aggregate consumption. Under both commitment and discretion, the real economy tracks the flex-price equilibrium closely. Notable differences between commitment and discretion appear in inflation: under discretion, the inflation response on impact is larger and more persistent than under commitment, and monetary policy tightens more aggressively (higher nominal rate) under discretion.

Q4. What is the key difference between the commitment and discretionary equilibria, and why is stabilization bias mostly absent?

Commitment (Ramsey) policy differs from discretionary policy primarily in the level of inflation, not in the dynamics of the real economy. Discretion generates an inflation bias of approximately 1.82 percent per annum. However, the impulse responses for real variables (output, consumption, employment, tightness, real wage) under commitment and discretion are very similar to each other and to the flex-price equilibrium for four of the five shocks. This indicates that forward guidance — which commitment provides and discretion does not — is not an important factor in this model’s response to these shocks. The intuition is that the economy’s fluctuations in response to matching efficiency and bargaining power shocks are largely efficient, so the central bank needs only to avoid creating additional distortions, which both commitment and discretion achieve.

Q5. What distinguishes the elasticity of substitution shock from the other shocks in terms of policy performance?

The elasticity of substitution shock behaves similarly to a markup shock in linearized models: an increase in substitutability reduces firms’ monopolistic power, lowers the price markup, raises output and consumption, increases hours worked, posted vacancies, employment, and the real wage. For this shock, the impulse responses under discretion diverge noticeably from those under commitment — the decline in inflation is larger and more persistent under discretion than under commitment, and the nominal interest rate response differs in sign across policies. This is the only shock in the model for which a meaningful discretionary stabilization bias is evident, consistent with conventional wisdom from linearized New Keynesian models that markup shocks generate stabilization bias.

Q6. How do the three simple rules compare with optimal policy for labor-market shocks?

Strict inflation targeting (SIT) behaves similarly to commitment and discretion and hence closely replicates the flex-price equilibrium for all five shocks. The two Taylor-type rules — one responding to inflation and output growth (parameterized with φ_π = 2.5, φ_y = 0.5/4) and one responding to inflation and the unemployment rate (φ_π = 2.5, φ_u = 1.5/4) — both generate substantially more volatility in inflation and the nominal interest rate relative to optimal policy. The unemployment-gap Taylor rule generally results in inflation moving more in response to shocks and in the economy returning more slowly to baseline, making it the worst-performing simple rule. However, all three simple rules produce welfare outcomes close to those under optimal policy; the suboptimality of the Taylor-type rules is most evident in nominal rather than real variables.

Q7. Does the zero lower bound (ZLB) pose a concern under any of the policies studied?

Based on simulating one million observations from each model, the unconditional probability of encountering the ZLB is very small — well below 0.5 percent — for all policies considered. The commitment policy has a ZLB probability of approximately 0.077 percent, reflecting its near-zero average inflation. Discretion’s positive inflation bias of 1.82 percent reduces the ZLB probability to approximately 0.001 percent. The Taylor-type rules — especially the unemployment-gap rule (ZLB probability approximately 0.296 percent) — have higher probabilities than discretion, though these remain very small. These results suggest that for the shocks analyzed, violations of the ZLB are extremely unlikely.

Q8. What are the steady-state and stochastic simulation mean outcomes, and how do they compare across regimes?

The deterministic steady-state unemployment rate is approximately 5.95 percent, rising slightly to a mean of 6.04 percent in the stochastic flex-price economy. The stochastic means for output, consumption, employment, and the real wage are all slightly below their deterministic steady states across all regimes, because in the absence of capital households respond to increased volatility by substituting away from labor toward leisure (precautionary leisure) rather than precautionary saving. Mean outcomes for real variables under discretion (e.g., output mean ≈ 0.3730, unemployment mean ≈ 6.025 percent) and commitment (output mean ≈ 0.3729, unemployment mean ≈ 6.028 percent) are very similar to each other and to the flex-price means (output mean ≈ 0.3728, unemployment mean ≈ 6.038 percent). The key difference is in inflation: commitment delivers near-zero mean inflation (≈ 0.00043 percent annually) while discretion delivers ≈ 1.82 percent annually.

Q9. Why is a nonlinear solution method used, and what does this allow the paper to capture that log-linearized approaches cannot?

The nonlinear solution is required because the flex-price equilibrium is not efficient (monopolistic competition and the matching friction both create distortions), so the discretionary policy problem cannot be formulated as a linear-quadratic problem. The nonlinear approach allows the paper to analyze both level biases (the steady-state inflation bias) and stabilization biases (the dynamic response to shocks) in a unified framework — something that log-linearization around the efficient steady state would preclude. Related papers by Furlanetto and Groshenny (2016) and Zhang (2017) focus on log-linearized models and the natural rate of unemployment; this paper focuses instead on optimal policy and policy biases.

Q10. What role does the consumption preference shock play, and how does it differ from the other shocks?

The consumption preference shock is the only shock in the model that acts somewhat like a demand shock. A one standard deviation increase raises the utility obtained from consumption, leading households to increase consumption and hours worked (at a slightly lower real wage), which induces firms to post more vacancies and raise employment. Most of the labor market response comes through higher hours rather than higher employment. Both commitment and discretionary policy cope well with this shock — the real economy closely tracks the flex-price equilibrium — because the shock has relatively little impact on inflation (inflation declines slightly due to lower real marginal costs from the lower real wage). The nominal interest rate rises because the increase in the real interest rate (driven by households’ desire to borrow) more than offsets the decline in inflation.

Key Concepts

Matching efficiency shock: A stochastic shock to the parameter mt in the constant-returns-to-scale matching function Mt = mt * u_t^xi * v_t^(1-xi), which governs the overall rate at which unemployed workers and posted vacancies are matched. A decline in mt reduces the number of matches formed at any given levels of unemployment and vacancies, raising unemployment and reducing employment. The paper treats this as an empirically relevant shock motivated by evidence of a sustained decline in aggregate matching efficiency during the Great Recession.

Discretionary inflation bias: The tendency for a central bank conducting policy without the ability to commit to produce systematically higher inflation than would occur under a commitment (Ramsey) regime. In this model, discretion generates an annualized inflation rate of approximately 1.82 percent, while commitment produces near-zero average inflation. This reflects the time-inconsistency problem (Kydland and Prescott, 1977; Barro and Gordon, 1983) arising from the interaction of monopolistic competition and price stickiness.

Stabilization bias: A distortion that arises under discretionary policy, in which the central bank’s inability to commit leads it to respond to shocks in a manner that departs from optimal commitment responses, producing suboptimal dynamics for real variables in addition to the inflation bias. In this paper, stabilization bias is found to be largely absent for matching efficiency, bargaining power, technology, and consumption preference shocks, but is present for the elasticity of substitution shock.

Hosios condition: The condition, derived in Hosios (1990), that efficient decentralized search-and-matching equilibrium requires workers’ bargaining power to equal the elasticity of matches with respect to the unemployment rate (ξ). In the paper’s notation: & = ξ. When the condition holds, the flex-price equilibrium replicates the social planner’s allocation in the labor market; deviations cause either excessive or insufficient vacancy posting.

Labor market tightness (θ): Defined as the ratio of vacancies to unemployed searchers, θt = vt/ut. When tightness is high, the labor market is tight and firms have difficulty filling vacancies (low job-filling rate q(θ)) while workers find jobs easily (high job-finding rate f(θ)). Tightness is the key state variable linking vacancy posting decisions by firms to employment dynamics and wage bargaining outcomes.

Bargaining power shock: A stochastic shock to the worker’s share of the Nash bargaining surplus (&t), which follows an AR(1) process. The Hosios condition holds at steady state but is violated when the shock is realized. A positive shock shifts surplus from firms to workers, raising real wages, depressing vacancy posting, and reducing employment, while a negative shock has the reverse effect.

Rotemberg price-adjustment cost: A quadratic cost φ/2 * (π_t)^2 * y_t paid by firms when they change prices, creating price stickiness without the “menu cost” lumpiness of Calvo pricing. This creates a role for monetary policy and generates a nonlinear Phillips curve. The coefficient φ is set to 80, based on the estimate in Ireland (2001).

Flex-price equilibrium: The benchmark equilibrium in which prices are fully flexible and bargaining is efficient (Hosios condition satisfied exactly). In this equilibrium there is no role for monetary policy over the price-adjustment margin, and the economy responds to shocks in a manner that is efficient conditional on the remaining frictions (monopolistic competition and the matching friction). The paper uses deviations of commitment and discretionary outcomes from this benchmark to measure the efficiency of optimal monetary policy.