Enforceable vs. non-enforceable contracts: a theoretical appraisal with fair players.

D'Agostino, Elena and Lisciandra, Maurizio (2012): Enforceable vs. non-enforceable contracts: a theoretical appraisal with fair players.

Abstract

In this paper we provide a simple model examining the choice between enforceable and non-enforceable contracts when, on the one hand, drafting an enforceable contract is costly and, on the other hand, fulfilling a non-enforceable contract is left to parties’ fairness. According to the previous literature we find that (1) the choice between the two contract settings in equilibrium depends on fairness and enforcement costs, and (2) whenever a non-enforceable contract is chosen in equilibrium it turns out welfare-improving. However, we are able to measure efficiency and make punctual predictions of how distant the decentralized solution is from first-best. Precisely, we find that efficiency is strongly conditioned by the stake of the transaction, so that both contracts allow for very high levels of efficiency in the presence of low-stake transactions, whereas efficiency always collapses to very low levels for high-stake transactions. It implies that a social planner should intervene only in the last case, even in the presence of high levels of fairness. Our results are robust and hold in a repeated game, proving that reputation is not welfare improving unless the number of interactions exceeds a given threshold.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: fairness; enforceability; contract choice; welfare analysis
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D86 - Economics of Contract: Theory

References

Akerlof, G.A. (1982). "Labor Contracts as a Partial Gift Exchange", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(4): 543-569.

Azar, O.H. (2007). "Do people tip strategically, to improve future service? Theory and evidence", Canadian Journal of Economics, 40(2): 515-527.

Berg, J., J.W. Dickhaut, and K.A. McCabe (1995). "Trust, reciprocity, and social history". Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1): 122-42.

Bolton, G.E., and A. Ockenfels (2000). "ERC - A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity and Competition", American Economic Review, 90(1): 166-193.

Brown, M., A. Falk, and E. Fehr (2004). "Relational Contracts and the Nature of Market Interactions", Econometrica, 72: 747-780.

Charness, G., and M. Rabin (2002). "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3): 817-869.

Cameron, L.A. (1999). "Raising the Stakes in the Ultimatum Game: Experimental Evidence from Indonesia", Economic Inquiry, 37(1): 47-59.

Dufwenberg, M., and G. Kirchsteiger (2004). "A Theory of Sequential Reciprocity". Games and Economic Behavior, 47(2): 268-98.

Englmaier, F., and S. Leider (2010). "Gift Exchange in the Lab - It is not (Only) how Much you Give...", CESifo Working Paper, No. 2944.

Fehr, E., and U. Fischbacher (2002). "Why social preferences matter -- The impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation and incentives", The Economic Journal, 112(March): C1-C33.

Fehr, E., U. Fischbacher, and E. Tougareva (2002). "Do High Stakes and Competition Undermine Fairness? Evidence from Russia", Discussion Paper No. 120, University of Zürich.

Fehr, E., S. Gächter, and G. Kirchsteiger (1997). "Reciprocity as Contract Enforcement device: Experimental Evidence", Econometrica, 65(4): 833-860.

Fehr, E., A. Klein, and K.M. Schmidt (2007). "Fairness and Contract design", Econometrica, 75(1): 121-154.

Fehr, E., and K.M. Schmidt (1999). "A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3): 817-68.

Fehr, E., and K.M. Schmidt (2002). "Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity - Evidence and Economic Applications", Advances in Economic Theory, Eighth World Congress of the Econometric Society, Vol. 1, ed. by M. Dewatripont, L. P. Hansen, and S. Turnovski. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 208-257.

Fehr, E., and H. Gintis (2007). "Human Motivation and Social Cooperation: Experimental and Analytical Foundations", Annual Review of Sociology, 33: 43-64.

Fehr, E., and K.M. Schmidt (2004). "Fairness and incentives in a multi-task principal-agent model", Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3): 453-74.

Fehr, E., and K.M. Schmidt (2007). "Adding a Stick to the Carrot? The Interaction of Bonuses and Fines", American Economic Review, 97(2): 177-181.

Fudenberg, D., and E. Maskin (1986). "The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information", Econometrica, 54: 533-554.

Gächter, S. and A. Falk (2002). "Reputation and Reciprocity: Consequences for the Labour Relation", Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 104(1): 1-26.

Geanakoplos, J., D. Pearce, and E. Stacchetti (1989). "Psychological games and Sequential Rationality", Games and Economic Behavior, 1(1): 60-80.

Hoffman, E., K. McCabe, and V. Smith (1996). "On Expectations and Monetary Stakes in Ultimatum Games", International Journal of Game Theory, 25: 289-301.

Levine, D.K. (1998). "Modeling Altruism and Spitefulness in Experiments", Review of Economic Dynamics, 1: 593-622.

MacLeod, W.B., and J.M. Malcomson (1989). "Implicit Contracts, Incentive Compatibility, and Involuntary Unemployment", Econometrica, 57(2): 447-480.

Milgrom, P., and J. Roberts (1992). Economics, Organizations & Management. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Rabin, M. (1993). "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics", American Economic Review, 83(5): 1281-1302.

Schaefer, S. (1998). "Dependence of Pay-Performance Sensitivity on the Size of the Firm", Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(3): 436-443.

Slonim, R. and A. Roth (1998), "Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic", Econometrica, 66: 569-596.

Sobel, J. (2005). "Interdependent Preferences and Reciprocity", Journal of Economic Literature, 43: 392-436.