Abstract
A large part of economics, and economic theory in particular, relies on such solution concepts as Nash equilibrium and its refinements. Unfortunately, it is difficult to provide a solid theoretical or empirical justification for Nash equilibrium behaviour. ‘Rationality’, or even ‘common knowledge of rationality’, is not enough to generate such behaviour. Among other things, one also needs to assume that the players coordinate their beliefs about each other’s actions (Armbruster and Boege, 1979; Johansen, 1982; Bernheim, 1984; Pearce, 1984; Bernheim, 1986; Binmore, 1987; Aumann, 1987; Tan and Werlang, 1988; Aumann and Brandenburger, 1991). Moreover, in games with a dynamic structure, the very notion of rationality becomes problematic, and common knowledge of rationality may even lead to logical contradictions (Rosenthal, 1981; Binmore, 1987; Bicchieri, 1989; Basu, 1988, 1990).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
