arXiv · 2508.07147
Maximizing Social Welfare with Side Payments
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 $Γ$ with a non-degenerate Nash equilibrium $\vecσ$, this protocol implements every welfare-maximizing payoff profile that \emph{strictly} Pareto-improves $\vecσ$. Thus, gradual and bounded commitments restore the full efficiency potential of side payments while avoiding the inefficiencies identified by Jackson and Wilkie.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Ivan Geffner, Caspar Oesterheld, Vincent Conitzer. 2025-08-10. Maximizing Social Welfare with Side Payments. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.07147
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.