On the persistence of strategic sophistication

We examine whether the “Level-k” model of strategic behavior generates reliable cross-game predictions at the individual level. We find no correlation in subjects' estimated levels of reasoning across two families of games. Furthermore, estimating a higher level for Ann than Bob in one family of games does not predict their ranking in the other. Direct tests of strategic reasoning generally do not predict estimated levels. Within families of games, we find that levels are fairly consistent within one family, but not the other. Our results suggest that the use of Level-k reasoning varies by game, making prediction difficult

Instabilities and robust control in natural resource management

Most renewable natural resources exhibit marked demographic and environmental stochasticities, which are exarcebated in management decisions by the uncertainty regarding the choice of an appropriate model to describe system dynamics. Moreover, demand and supply analysis often indicates the presence of instabilities and multiple equilibria, which may lead to management problems that are intensified by uncertainty on the evolution of the resource stock. In this paper the fishery management problem is used as an example to explore the potential of robust optimal control, where the objective is to choose a harvesting rule that will work under a range of admissible specifications for the stock-recruitment equation. The paper derives robust harvesting rules leading to a unique equilibrium, which could be helpful in the design of policy instruments such as robust quota systems.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Fiscal Austerity in Ambiguous Times

How should public debt be managed when uncertainty about the business cycle is widespread and debt levels are high, as in the aftermath of the last financial crisis? This paper analyzes optimal fiscal policy with ambiguity aversion and endogenous government spending. We show that, without ambiguity, optimal surplus-to-output ratios are acyclical and that there is no rationale for either reduction or further accumulation of public debt. In contrast, ambiguity about the cycle can generate optimal policies that resemble "austerity" measures. Optimal policy prescribes front-loaded fiscal consolidations and convergence to a balanced primary budget in the long run. This is the case when interest rates are sufficiently responsive to cyclical shocks; that is, when the intertemporal elasticity of substitution is sufficiently low

Making the Anscombe-Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications

The Anscombe-Aumann (AA) model, originally introduced to give a normative basis to expected utility, is nowadays mostly used for another purpose: to analyze deviations from expected utility due to ambiguity (unknown probabilities). The AA model makes two ancillary assumptions that do not refer to ambiguity: expected utility for risk and backward induction. These assumptions, even if normatively appropriate, fail descriptively. This paper relaxes these ancillary assumptions to avoid the descriptive violations, while maintaining AA\xe2\x80\x99s convenient mixture operation. Thus, it becomes possible to test and apply all AA-based ambiguity theories descriptively while avoiding confounds due to violated ancillary assumptions. The resulting tests use only simple stimuli, avoiding noise due to complexity. We demonstrate the latter in a simple experiment where we find that three assumptions about ambiguity, commonly made in AA theories, are violated: reference independence, universal ambiguity aversion, and weak certainty independence. The second, theoretical, part of the paper accommodates the violations found for the first ambiguity theory in the AA model\xe2\x80\x94Schmeidler\xe2\x80\x99s CEU theory\xe2\x80\x94by introducing and axiomatizing a reference dependent generalization. That is, we extend the AA ambiguity model to prospect theory

Reasoning about others' reasoning

Recent experiments suggest that level-k behavior is often driven by subjects' beliefs, rather than their binding cognitive bounds. But the extent to which this is true in general is not completely understood, mainly because disentangling ‘cognitive’ and ‘behavioral’ levels is challenging experimentally and theoretically. In this paper we provide a simple experimental design strategy (the ‘tutorial method’) to disentangle the two concepts purely based on subjects' choices. We also provide a ‘replacement method’ to assess whether the increased sophistication observed when stakes are higher is due to an increase in subjects' own understanding or to their beliefs over others' increased incentives to reason. We find evidence that, in some of our treatments, the cognitive bound is indeed binding for a large fraction of subjects. Furthermore, a significant fraction of subjects do take into account others' incentives to reason. Our findings also suggest that, in general, level-k behavior should not be taken as driven either by cognitive limits alone or beliefs alone. Rather, there is an interaction between own cognitive bound and reasoning about the opponent's reasoning process. These findings provide support to more subtle implications of the EDR model (Alaoui and Penta, 2016a) than those which were previously tested, and show that the EDR framework is a useful tool for analyzing and understanding the complex interaction of cognitive abilities, incentives, and strategic reasoning. From a broader methodological viewpoint, the tutorial and replacement methods have broader applicability, and can be used to study the beliefs-cognition dichotomy and higher order beliefs effects in non level-k settings as well.The authors acknowledge financial support from the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, through the Severo Ochoa Programme for Centres of Excellence in R&D (CEX2019-000915-S). Larbi Alaoui acknowledges financial support from the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (grant number PGC2018-098949-B-I00) and the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Beca Ramon y Cajal RYC-2016-21127)