Maximizing Social Welfare with Side Payments

TL;DR

This paper introduces a staged-commitment protocol allowing players to make incremental, consensual side payments in normal-form games, which restores the ability to achieve welfare-maximizing outcomes without the inefficiencies of unbounded commitments.

Contribution

It proposes a novel staged-commitment protocol that enables efficient welfare maximization in games with side payments, overcoming previous issues with unbounded commitments.

Findings

The protocol implements all welfare-maximizing payoffs that Pareto-improve the Nash equilibrium.

Gradual, capped commitments prevent the inefficiencies caused by unbounded side contracts.

The approach restores the full efficiency potential of side payments in normal-form games.

Abstract

We examine normal-form games in which players may \emph{pre-commit} to outcome-contingent transfers before choosing their actions. In the one-shot version of this model, Jackson and Wilkie showed that side contracting can backfire: even a game with a Pareto-optimal Nash equilibrium can devolve into inefficient equilibria once unbounded, simultaneous commitments are allowed. The root cause is a prisoner's dilemma effect, where each player can exploit her commitment power to reshape the equilibrium in her favor, harming overall welfare. To circumvent this problem we introduce a \emph{staged-commitment} protocol. Players may pledge transfers only in small, capped increments over multiple rounds, and the phase continues only with unanimous consent. We prove that, starting from any finite game $\Gamma$ with a non-degenerate Nash equilibrium $\vec{\sigma}$, this protocol implements every welfare-maximizing payoff profile that \emph{strictly} Pareto-improves $\vec{\sigma}$. Thus, gradual and bounded commitments restore the full efficiency potential of side payments while avoiding the inefficiencies identified by Jackson and Wilkie.