Global COE Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series 128

Research Unit for Statisticaland Empirical Analysis in Social Sciences (Hi-Stat)

Contributing or Free-Riding?
Voluntary Participation in a Public Good Economy

Hi-Stat Discussion Paper

Taiji Furusawa
Hideo Konishi

March 2010

Hi-Stat
Institute of Economic Research
Hitotsubashi University
2-1 Naka, Kunitatchi Tokyo, 186-8601 Japan
http://gcoe.ier.hit-u.ac.jp

Contributing or Free-Riding?
Voluntary Participation in a Public Good Economy∗
Taiji Furusawa†

Hideo Konishi‡

March 5, 2010

Abstract
We consider a (pure) public goods provision problem with voluntary participation in aquasi-linear economy. We propose a new hybrid solution concept, the free-riding-proof
core (FRP-Core), which endogenously determines a contribution group, public good
provision level, and its cost-sharing. The FRP-Core is always nonempty in public good
economies but does not usually achieve global efficiency. The FRP-Core has support
from both cooperative and noncooperative games. In particular, it is equivalent tothe set of perfectly coalition-proof Nash equilibrium (Bernheim, Peleg, and Whinston,1987) of a dynamic game with players’ participation decisions followed by a common
agency game of public goods provision. We illustrate various properties of the FRPCore with an example. We also show that the equilibrium level of public good shrinks
to zero as the economy is replicated.

Keywords endogenous coalition formation, externalities, public good, perfectly coalitionproof Nash equilibrium, free-riders, free-riding-proof core, lobbying, common agency game∗The paper is an expanded version of “Contributing or Free-Riding? A Theory of Endogenous Lobby
Formation,” by the same authors. We are grateful to Francis Bloch, Bhaskar Dutta, Matt Jackson, Hubert Kempf, Michihiro Kandori, Chiu Yu Ko, Rachel Kranton, Michel Le Breton, Akihiko Matsui, Herve
Moulin, Elena Paltseva, Ryusuke Shinohara, Sang-Seung Yi, and the participants of many seminars andworkshops/conferences for their comments. Konishi thanks Kyoto Institute of Economic Research for providing an excellent research environment. Both authors are grateful to two anonymous referees for helpfulcomments and suggestions. All remaining errors are, of course, our own.
†
Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, and RIETI, Japan.
(E-mail)furusawa@econ.hit-u.ac.jp‡
Corresponding author:
Department of Economics,
Boston College,
USA. (E-mail)hideo.konishi@bc.edu

1Introduction

The free-riding problem is a central issue in collective decision-makings. Examples include
lobbies that are formed to seek a government’s protection. Firms in an industry may forma lobby to influence the government’s trade and industrial policies; but as long as sufficientnumber of firms participate in the lobbying (thus the resulting protection level is reasonablyhigh), some firms may want to stay out and free-ride on others. Free-riding incentives also
exist in other collective decision makings, such as firms’ cartel formation and international
agreement to tackle the global climate change. Effectiveness of lobbies, cartels, and international agreements all depend on the composition of the active participants in these activities,
which is heavily influenced by free-riding incentives.
These problems can be regarded as pure public goods provision problems with voluntary
participation. Players are faced with a choice between actively participating in a public
good provision and free-riding on the contributors; if a player participates (and only in suchcases), she needs to share the cost of public goods provision although she can influence thelevel of provision. A notable feature of the public goods provision problem is that expansionof the contribution group is always beneficial to everybody. Since benefits from public goods
will be extended beyond contribution group members, however, there always exist free-riding
incentives, which generally grow as a contribution group expands. Therefore, it is important
to consider potential coalitional deviations that are immune to further deviations. A proposalof membership expansion, which is regarded as a coalitional deviation, may not be immune
to free-riding by the incumbents, however, so that some of these Pareto-improving proposals
may not be credible. To define an appropriate solution in the public good provision problem
with voluntary participation, therefore, we must consider all possible coalitional deviations
that are immune to further deviations.
In this paper, employing a quasi-linear economy, or equivalently a transferable utility(TU) framework, we propose the free-riding-proof core (FRP-Core) for the public goods
provision problem with voluntary participation, which is an institution-free solution concept
with farsightedness. The FRP-Core is a hybrid solution concept as it is required to be1

immune not only to coalitional deviations to create an alternative contribution group (inline with cooperative game theory) but to unilateral free-riding deviations (in line with noncooperative game theory); the FRP-Core can be considered as the core without binding
agreements. It determines a contribution group to form, public good provision level, and apayoff allocation within the group.
The FRP-Core is defined in the following way. First, for every possible contributiongroup, we collect all allocations such that (i) they are immune to all coalitional deviations
by subsets of the group to reorganize the contribution group, and (ii) no member of thegroup is better off by unilaterally opting out of the group to free-ride. These allocations
constitute the set of internally stable allocations for the contribution group. Second, foreach contribution group, we collect all internally stable allocations that are not blocked byany other contribution group’s deviations with their internally stable allocations. The freeriding-proof core (FRP-Core) is the union of such stable sets over all possible contributiongroups. In the pure public goods economy, the FRP-Core is always nonempty (Proposition
2).
The FRP-Core does not only have intuitive appeal, but also has nice and useful correspondences with cooperative and noncooperative game solution (equilibrium) concepts. On
one hand, the FRP-Core is equivalent to the core when the set of feasible allocations are
restricted to the ones of free-riding-proof (Theorem 1). Thus, the FRP-Core is a natural andappealing solution concept from the viewpoint of cooperative game theory, which provides
solutions that are robust to changes in detailed specification of discussed situations. On
the other hand, the FRP-Core is equivalent to the set of equilibrium outcomes of a simple
extensive-form game such that players individually decides whether or not to participate in
the public good contribution group in the first stage, followed by a common agency game
(Bernheim and Whinston, 1986) of public goods provision with players in the contributiongroup as principals and the government as the agent. This equivalence provides a support
for the FRP-Core from the viewpoint of noncooperative game theory.
The equivalence result requires more explanations. The common agency game introduced2

by Bernheim and Whinston (1986) is a game in which players (principals) simultaneously
offer their individual contribution schedules to the agent to try to affect the agent’s actionin the interest of themselves.1 To refine the Nash equilibrium, which tends to yield a large
equilibrium set due to coordination problem, Bernheim and Whinston (1986) propose thecoalition-proof Nash equilibrium (CPNE), a communication-based equilibrium concept forthe common agency game. In the first stage of our extensive-form game, players individually decide whether or not to participate in the contribution group, which also involves
the coordination problem. Therefore, it is natural for us to adopt a dynamic extension of
CPNE, which is the perfectly coalition-proof Nash equilibrium (PCPNE; Bernheim, Peleg,and Whinston, 1987). The equilibrium concept PCPNE fits particularly well to the public
goods provision problems in which players may communicate with each other as to whether
or not they join the contribution group.
The equilibrium concept PCPNE has a few merits: (i) it determines a contributiongroup, public goods provision level, and its cost-sharing altogether, (ii) it allows players topropose a (coalitional) deviation plan in which they coordinate their strategies (including
the ones in subgames) through communications, and (iii) it requires credibility of proposed
deviation plans so that no credible deviation remains in equilibrium. CPNE and PCPNE are
strategy profiles that are immune to (recursively defined) credible group deviations with theirstrategies coordinated. A credible deviation is a deviation that is immune to further nested
credible deviations. Credibility requirement enables us to exclude noncredible proposals ofmembership expansion from consideration. We show the equivalence between the FRPCore and PCPNEs of the aforementioned extensive-form game of public goods provision(Theorem 2). In contrast, the Appendix C examines some other natural candidates of
equilibrium concept such as the subgame perfect Nash equilibrium, and some other forms of
the public goods provision game, and shows that those other equilibrium allocations do notcoincide with the FRP-Core allocations. What distinguishes PCPNE from other solution
concepts is property (ii) in the above. Players in a deviation group can discuss which
1This game has been widely applied to political economy models with lobbying, especially in the field ofinternational trade (e.g., Grossman and Helpman, 1994).

3

(credible) strategies they take in the following subgames, which eliminates ungrounded fear
about possibly unfavorable consequences of the deviation and hence solve the coordination
problem.
We examine properties of the set of FRP-Core allocations with a simple example in which
players differ only in their willingness-to-pay for a public good, and show that (i) there are
multiple possible equilibrium contribution groups in general, (ii) an equilibrium contributiongroup may not include the player with the highest willingness-to-pay, and (iii) equilibrium
contribution-group members may not be consecutive in their willingness-to-pay, i.e., there
may be an outsider whose willingness-to-pay lies between those of two contributors.
We also analyze how equilibrium public goods provision changes as the economy becomeslarge. Following Milleron’s (1972) notion of replicating a public goods economy, we provethat the equilibrium public goods provision level converges to zero as the economy grows(Theorem 3).2
This paper is organized as follows. The next two subsections briefly discuss some related
literature. Section 2 sets out our public goods provision game, and introduces the FRP-Core
as a solution concept. We also provide a simple characterization of the FRP-Core (Theorem1), which indicates that the FRP-Core is a natural solution concept for the public goods
provision problem with voluntary participation. In Section 3, we provide a noncooperative
voluntary participation game, and propose PCPNE as an equilibrium concept. In Section
4, we prove the equivalence between PCPNE and the FRP-Core (Theorem 2). In Section
5, we provide an example to reveal some interesting properties of the FRP-Core. Section
6 considers a replica economy and shows that the public goods provision level shrinks tozero as the economy is replicated in a certain way (Theorem 3). In Section 7, we conclude
with a discussion on the robustness of our results to the utility specification. In particular,
we argue that all the results would be preserved with some additional mild assumptions
even if we adopt Gorman-form utilities (Bergstrom and Cornes, 1983) instead of quasi-linear2
Muench (1972), Milleron (1972) and Conley (1994) discuss the difficulty of replicating a public goods
economy and offer various possible methods. Milleron’s notion of replication is to split endowments withreplicates and adjust preferences so that agents’ concerns for the private good are relative to the size of theirendowments. This notion is employed by Healy (2007).

4

utilities. Then, the Appendix A provides useful properties of the core of convex games
and an algorithm that finds a core allocation starting with an arbitrary utility vector. The
Appendix B collects proofs of our results. The Appendix C examines some other equilibrium
concepts and extensive-form games to be compared with the PCPNE of our extensive-form
game (or the FRP-Core).

1.1

Related Literature in Theory of Coalition Formation

Since the public good in our problem is pure so that outsiders can enjoy the benefits frompublic goods provision, our problem belongs to the class of coalition formation problem withspillovers (externalities). The literature on this subject is very large (see Bloch 1997, andRay 2007 for overviews); here we only discuss most related papers to ours.
CPNE has been adopted as an equilibrium concept in the theory of coalition formation.
Thoron (1998) examines the formation of a single cartel and shows that the coalition-proof
stable cartel is uniquely determined adopting the CPNE as a solution concept. Yi and Shin
(2000) investigate research joint venture allowing multiple R&D cartels to form; they examine
the existence of a CPNE and its properties. In these papers, credible coalitional deviations
are considered only in the stage of players’ decisions as to whether or not they participate
in a coalition. In the extensive-form game of this paper, we require both participation andcontribution decisions of players to be immune to credible coalitional deviations. To ourknowledge, this paper is the first to use PCPNE as a solution concept of coalition formation
problem, which endogenously determines the coalition formation and the allocation of payoffs
within the coalition.
The literature also includes studies on the coalition formation regarding the public goods
provision. Assuming identical players and nontransferable payoffs, Bloch (1997) provides acomplete comparison of the equilibrium coalition structures, employing various solution concepts and game forms. Also assuming identical players, Ray and Vohra (2001) characterize
the equilibrium coalition structure and payoff allocations for a standard sequential coalitional
bargaining game of public goods provision. These authors allow multiple coalitions to form

5

for public goods provision. In contrast, we assume that there is only one coalition to form
and its members are the only ones who provide a public good.3 But, we allow players to beheterogeneous, and more importantly provide a simple characterization of the set of PCPNE
allocations utilizing its equivalence with the FRP-Core.
Last but not least, there is the literature on noncooperative coalition bargaining games
that discusses the relationship between the equilibrium outcome(s) in the limit cases andthe core. Chatterjee, Dutta, Ray and Sengupta (1993) show that the Markov equilibriumoutcome is a subsolution of the core (in convex TU games). Perry and Reny (1994) andMoldovanu and Winter (1995) provide coalitional bargaining games that implement thecore.4 The latter two papers are particularly related to our paper, since the set of outcomesof CPNE is equivalent to the core in our common agency game.5 In the Appendix C, we
compare the set of PCPNEs of our game with equilibrium outcomes of these noncooperative
bargaining games preceded by a voluntary participation game.

1.2

Related Literature on Voluntary Participation Mechanisms in
Public Goods Economy

It is well known that public goods provision is subject to free-riding incentives. Although
Samuelson’s (1954) view of this problem was pessimistic, Groves and Ledyard (1977) showthat efficient public goods provision can be achieved in Nash equilibrium if individual rationality is not required. Then, Hurwicz (1979) and Walker (1981) show that the Lindahl
mechanism is implementable. Subsequently, numerous mechanisms have been proposed to
improve the properties of mechanisms. They all assume, however, that players have no freedom to make participation decisions about the mechanism, i.e., players’ participation to themechanism is always assumed.
3

With our second-stage common agency game, this difference turns out to be unimportant. Even if
multiple coalitions are formed, equilibrium public goods provision level will be the same as the case of
the union of them is the contribution group. We need to assume, however, that non-participants cannot
contribute in the second stage.
4
We thank a referee for bringing our attention to this literature.
5
Laussel and Le Breton (2001) show that the set of CPNE outcomes is equivalent to the core when theunderlying TU game of a common agency game is convex. Convexity of TU game is satisfied in the common
agency game in a public good provision problem.

6

Introducing outside opportunities by a “reversion function” (such that each outcome
is mapped to another outcome in case of no participation), Jackson and Palfrey (2001)
analyze the implementation problem when players’ participation in a mechanism is voluntary.
Although their reversion function is very general, it assigns the same outcome no matter
who deviates from the original outcome. Thus, the method may not be suitable for a
public goods provision problem in which different players’ deviations from participation may
generate different outcomes. Taking this consideration into account, Healy (2007) analyzes
the implementation problem in a public goods economy demanding all players’ participationin equilibrium (i.e., equilibrium participation). He shows that as the economy is replicated inMilleron’s (1972) sense, the set of equilibrium allocations of any mechanism that satisfies theequilibrium participation condition converges to the endowment. Although the equilibrium
public goods provision level converges to zero as the economy is replicated also in our model,
we allow players not to participate in the contribution group in equilibrium, and it is indeed
the source of under-provision of the public good unlike Healy’s (2007).
Closest to our noncooperative framework is the one by Saijo and Yamato (1999), who
are the first to consider a two-stage voluntary participation game of a public goods economy,
without requiring all players’ participation in equilibrium.6 They show a negative result on
efficiency of public goods provision, and then characterize subgame perfect equilibria in thecase of symmetric Cobb-Douglas utility. In contrast, we show that the set of PCPNE of acommon agency game with a participation decision is equivalent to our FRP-Core, allowing
heterogeneous players that have quasi-linear utility functions.
Palfrey and Rosenthal (1984) show that in a binary public goods provision game wheresymmetric players voluntarily make participation decisions, all pure-strategy Nash equilibria
are efficient (if contributions are not refundable in case of no provision). With asymmetricplayers, there are many Nash equilibria with different levels of cooperation. Shinohara (2009)6

In the field of international trade, Bombardini (2008) and Paltseva (2006) extend Grossman and Helpman’s (1994) menu-auction political-economy model to incorporate firms’ voluntary participation in lobbies;
they consider the cases in which firms in oligopolistic, import-competing industries make participation decisions. Unlike our noncooperative game framework, Bombardini (2008) only considers the most efficient
contribution group, while Paltseva (2006) assumes that firms are symmetric and derives subgame perfectequilibrium as opposed to PCPNE.

7

examines a public goods provision problem with decreasing marginal benefits, and shows in
the case of homogeneous players that it becomes harder to support efficient allocations as
the efficient level of the public good rises and hence the number of participants needed toprovide the public good increases. Our Theorem 3 has some similarity to this result.

2

The ModelThis section sets out the contribution game in which all players’ interests accord with eachother, although the intensity of their interests can be heterogeneous. We first describe theproblem of our interest, and then propose the FRP-Core as an appealing solution of the
problem.

2.1

Public Goods Provision Problem

A stylized public goods model is defined as follows. There is a public good whose provisionlevel is denoted by a ∈ A = R+ .7 Provision cost function C : A → R+ is continuousand strictly increasing with C(0) = 0. The government provides the public good, and its
cost is regarded as the government’s disutility from the provision; the government’s utility
from providing a units of the public good is vG (a) = −C(a). Player i’s utility function isquasi-linear such that her utility from the consumption of the public good is vi (a) and thenet consumption x of the private goods enter the function linearly, i.e., vi (a) + x, wherevi : A → R+ is strictly increasing with vi (0) = 0. In order to guarantee the existence of a
non-trivial solution, we assume that (i) there exists ã ∈ A such that vi (ã) − C(ã) > 0 for allPi ∈ N , where N is the set of n players, and (ii) there is â ∈ A such that i∈N vi (a)−C(a) < 0
for all a > â. The only new element to this standard public goods provision game is thatevery player has a choice as to whether or not to participate in the contribution group. The
contribution group, therefore, may be a proper subset of all players.
7

For our equivalence results (Theorems 1 and 2), we only need comonotonic preferences over an abstract
agenda set A. The extension is straightforward. We focus on the one-dimensional public goods economy
just for simplicity.

8

2.2

Free-Riding-Proof CoreWe first define an intuitive hybrid solution concept, free-riding-proof core (FRP-Core). In
short, the FRP-Core is the Pareto-optimal set of the Foley-core allocations of all contributiongroups that are immune to free-riding incentives. The FRP-Core will be shown to be always
nonempty in the public goods provision problem.
Our interests in the public goods provision problem are twofold: (i) which group provides
how much of the public goods, and (ii) how the benefits and costs of the public good areshared by the group members. For S ⊆ N with S 6= ∅, we define"#X
V (S) ≡ max
vi (a) − C(a) ,
a∈A

and

i∈S

"
a∗ (S) ≡ arg max
a∈A

#
X

vi (a) − C(a) .

i∈SAn allocation for S is (S, a, u) such that u ∈ Rn+ ,Pi∈S ui ≤P

i∈S vi (a)−C(a), and uj = vj (a)for all j ∈/ S. An efficient allocation for S is an allocation (S, a, u) such thatPi∈S ui = V (S)with a ∈ a∗ (S). (Henceforth, we assume that a∗ (S) is a singleton just for simplicity.) Notethat N \S are passive free-riders, and they do not contribute at all. Let X(S) be the collectionof all efficient allocations for S. A free-riding-proof efficient allocation for S is an efficient
allocation for S, (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ X(S) such thatui ≥ vi (a∗ (S\{i})) for any i ∈ S.
That is, under a free-riding-proof efficient allocation, no player in S has an incentive to opt
out of the contribution group while enjoying the public good provided by the remaining
players in S. Let X F RP (S) be the set of all free-riding-proof efficient allocations for S. It
should be emphasized that X F RP (S) can be empty when S is a large set; with a large numberof members, it becomes harder to satisfy free-riding-proofness.
Given that S is the contribution group, a natural way to allocate utility among themembers is to use the core (Foley, 1970).8 Focusing on coalition S and its subsets, we write
8

The Foley core is the standard core concept of a public good economy. In the definition of the Foley core,9P
Core(S) = (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ X(S) : i∈T ui ≥ V (T ), ∀T ⊆ S , the set of all core allocationsfor S, which is immune to all subcoalitions’ group deviations. Obviously, a core allocationfor S may not be immune to free-riding incentives for the members of S. Thus, we define the
FRP-core allocation for S by CoreF RP (S) = Core(S) ∩ X F RP (S). An FRP-Core allocationfor S is a core allocation for S that is immune to unilateral free-riding deviations, andCoreF RP (S) is the set of all FRP-Core allocations for S.9 The set CoreF RP (S) is a collectionof internally stable allocations for S in the sense that no subgroup of S has an incentive todeviate to form an alternative contribution group, and no player in S has an incentive tofree-ride. Similarly to X F RP (S), CoreF RP (S) may be empty for a large group S, but it isnonempty for small groups (for singleton groups in particular).
Now, we consider allocations that are “fully” stable against any coalitional blocking.
A coalition T (weakly) blocks an allocation (S, a∗ (S), u) via an allocation (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ), if
and only if (i) u0i ≥ ui for all i ∈ T and u0j > uj for at least one member j ∈ T , (ii)
P
P
0
0
10
0
0
The solution concept freei∈T 0 ui ≥ V (T ) for all T ⊂ T .
i∈T ui = V (T ), and (iii)riding-proof core (FRP-Core) is a collection of all FRP-Core allocations for all S, which are
not blocked by any coalitions T with an FRP-Core allocation for T . That is,
CoreF RP =

(S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ ∪S 0 ⊆N CoreF RP (S 0 ) : there does not exist T

and (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈ CoreF RP (T ) that (weakly) blocks (S, a∗ (S), u) .
The FRP-Core is a collection of internally stable allocations for some coalition that are notblocked by any other coalition with an internally stable allocation; we impose a credibility
when a subset of the contribution group decides to deviate from an allocation, the original agreement on thelevel of public good provision and its cost-sharing are totally abandoned and the public good is provided
solely by the deviating coalition. Others, including the members (if any) of the original contribution groupin question who are not in the deviating coalition, are still able to enjoy the public good. In the Foley notionof the core, what is important is to see whether or not members of a blocking coalition would be better off
by the deviation, while well-being of other players is not the issue.
9
The FRP-core allocations would not be affected even if we allow free-riding deviations by multiple
players in our public goods provision game. If an efficient allocation is immune to any unilateral free-riding
deviation, it is also immune to any free-riding deviations by multiple players, since the reduction of the
public good would become larger if more players free-ride so that every player prefers free-riding by herself
if she free-rides at all.
10
We use “weak” blocking and weak Pareto-domination in this paper, partly because it would give us
clearer result in the noncooperative game we consider in the next section.

10

constraint for legitimate coalitional deviations, regarding non-internally-stable coalitional
deviations as non-credible because there would be further deviations from such deviations.
The above hybrid solution concept is natural and appealing, but it might not appear tobe easy to work with when applied to specific problems. For example, it is not immediately
clear if FRP-Core is nonempty. The following proposition provides a useful property of thecore for subsets of N .
Proposition 1. If a core allocation for T , (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈ Core(T ), blocks (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈Core(S), then a∗ (S) < a∗ (T ) and (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈ Core(T ) (weakly) Pareto-dominates(S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ Core(S).
Proposition 1 claims that if a core allocation for T is preferred to a core allocation for S by
all members of T , then the former allocation Pareto-dominates the latter in our pure public
good economy. This proposition simplifies the characterization of the FRP-Core, allowing
us to rewrite it as
CoreF RP = ∪S 0 ∈2N CoreF RP (S 0 ),where Ω, for an arbitrary set of allocations Ω, denotes the Pareto frontier of Ω (i.e., an
allocation (S, a, u) is in a set Ω if and only if there is no allocation (T, a0 , u0 ) ∈ Ω such thatu0 ≥ u with u0i > ui for some i ∈ N ). This property assures that CoreF RP is nonempty.
Proposition 2. CoreF RP = ∪S 0 ∈2N CoreF RP (S 0 ) 6= ∅.
We can also characterize CoreF RP , using the standard core concept on a restricted allocation set. Take the union of all free-riding-proof efficient allocations for S over all S ⊆ N
to obtain X F RP = ∪S⊆N X F RP (S). Then we apply the core concept to the set of free-ridingproof allocations X F RP :Core X F RP=

(S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ X F RP : there does not exist (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈ X F RP

such that u0i ≥ ui for all i ∈ T , and u0j > uj for some j ∈ T .
We have the following theorem.
11

Theorem 1. CoreF RP = Core X F RP .
Two remarks follow. First, for the standard transferable utility (TU) and non-transferable
utility (NTU) characteristic-function-form game, Ray (1989) defines credible coalitions recursively on nested coalitions and defines the credible core; he shows that the core and thecredible core are equivalent. Despite the fact that our game has externalities due to spilloversof the public good and the grand coalition usually does not support the FRP-Core, his argument extends to our case such that the credible core of X F RP coincides with CoreF RP .
Second, we impose efficiency on the allocations in the definition of X F RP only for simplicity.
We can easily allow inefficient allocations in the definition of feasible allocations by using
P
X̃ F RP (S) = {(S, a∗ (S), u) : i∈S ui ≤ V (S), and ui ≥ vi (a∗ (S\{i})) for all i ∈ S} and letting X̃ F RP = ∪S⊆N X̃ F RP (S). However, we would still require each contribution group S toprovide the public good at the efficient level, i.e., a(S) = a∗ (S). We need to assign a public
goods provision level to every S ⊂ N in order to define the free-riding-proof allocations;the efficient public goods provision level a∗ (S) is a natural candidate to be assigned to eachgroup S.

3

A Voluntary Participation GameWe discuss the endogenous contribution-group formation and its consequences on the public
goods provision. We first define the extensive-form, public-good contribution game withvoluntary participation; the first stage is a group formation game followed by the secondstage common agency game played by group S that has been formed in the first stage.
For this extensive-form game, we do not only require the common agency stage of public
goods provision to be coalition-proof but require the contribution-group formation itself to becoalition-proof. As an extension of CPNE for strategic-form games to the one for extensiveform games, Bernheim, Peleg, and Whinston (1987) define the perfectly coalition-proof Nashequilibrium (PCPNE) as the coalition-proof Nash equilibrium for multi-stage games.
The first-stage group-formation game is such that each player i ∈ N chooses her action
from the set Σ1i = {0, 1}, where 0 and 1 represent non-participation and participation,
12

respectively, i.e., player i announces her participation decision. Once action profile σ 1 =(σ11 , ..., σn1 ) ∈ Σ1 = Πj∈N Σ1j is selected, then the contribution game takes place in the second
stage with the set of active players S(σ 1 ) = {i ∈ N : σi1 = 1}. Since the agent’s (thegovernment’s) choice in the third stage is a mechanical decision problem, we incorporate
this stage in the second-stage contribution game (following Bernheim and Whinston, 1986).
The second-stage game is a common agency game played by participating principals
S(σ 1 ), as analyzed by Bernheim and Whinston (1986). The set N \S(σ 1 ) is the set of passive
free-riders. Each player i ∈ S(σ 1 ) simultaneously offers a contribution schedule τi : A → R+ .
Given the profile of contribution schedules τS(σ1 ) = (τi (a))i∈S(σ1 ) , the government G (theagent) chooses a public goods provision level a ∈ A that maximizes its net payoff:uG (a, τS(σ1 ) ) =X

τi (a) + vG (a)i∈S(σ 1 )=Xτi (a) − C(a),i∈S(σ 1 )where the first term on the right-hand side of the last equation is the total contribution andthe second term is the cost of public goods provision. If the government chooses a ∈ A, thenplayer i obtains her payoffui (a, τi (a)) = vi (a) − τi (a),for i ∈ S(σ 1 ), andui (a) = vi (a),for i ∈/ S(σ 1 ). The government’s optimal choice is described bya∗ (S, τS(σ1 ) ) ∈ arg max uG (a, τS(σ1 ) ),a∈Awith a slight abuse of notation. Let T be the set of all contribution schedules τi : A → R+ .
Player i’s second-stage strategy σi2 is a mapping σi2 : 2N \{∅} → T : i.e., a contribution
schedule is assigned to each subgame. Note that in subgame S ∈ 2N \{∅} where i ∈/ S,
σi2 (S) : A → R+ is irrelevant to the outcome. Nevertheless, we include non-participant’s
second-stage strategies for notational simplicity. The set of player i’s second-stage strategies
is denoted by Σ2i .
13

3.1

Perfectly Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibrium for the ContributionGroup Participation Game

Following Bernheim, Peleg, and Whinston (1987), we define PCPNE for our two-stage game.
Let Σ ≡ Πi∈N Σi . Player i’s strategy is σi = (σi1 , σi2 ) ∈ Σi = Σ1i × Σ2i and her payoff function
is ui : Σ → R as described in the above.
For T ⊆ N , we consider a reduced game Γ(T, σ−T ) in which only players in T are active
while players in N \ T are passive such that they always choose σ−T . We also consider proper2
subgames for every σ 1 ∈ Σ1 , and reduced subgames Γ(T, σ 1 , σ−T) in a similar way. A perfectly

coalition-proof Nash equilibrium (PCPNE) (σ ∗ , a∗ ) ≡ ((σi1∗ , σi2∗ )i∈N , a∗ ) is defined recursively
as follows.
Definition. (Bernheim, Peleg, and Whinston, 1987)
2), strategy σi2∗ (S(σ 1 )) ∈ T and(i) In a single-player, single-stage subgame Γ({i}, σ 1 , σ−{i}agenda a∗ chosen by the agent is PCPNE if σi2∗ maximizes ui through the choice of a∗ .
(ii) Let (n, t) be the pair of the number of players and the number of stages of the reduced(sub-)game, where t ∈ {1, 2}. Let (n, t) 6= (1, 1). Assume that PCPNE has been
defined for all games with m players and r stages, where (m, r) ≤ (n, t) with (m, r) 6=(n, t).
(a) For any game Γ with n players and t stages, (σ ∗ , a∗ ) ∈ Σ × A is perfectly selfenforcing, if for all proper subset T of the n players, (σT∗ , a∗ ) is PCPNE in the∗
reduced game Γ(T, σ−T), and if the restriction of σ ∗ to any proper subgame forms

a (P)CPNE in that subgame,and(b) for any game Γ with n players and t stages, (σ ∗ , a∗ ) is a PCPNE if it is perfectly
self-enforcing, and if there does not exist another perfectly self-enforcing pair14

(σ, a) ∈ Σ × A such that ui (a, σi ) ≥ ui (a∗ σi∗ ) for all i = 1, ..., n with at least one
strict inequality.11

For any T ⊆ N and any strategy profile σ, let P CP N E(Γ(T, σ−T )) denote the set of
PCPNE strategy profiles for T in the reduced game Γ(T, σ−T ). A strategic coalitional deviation (T, σT0 , a0 ) from any strategy profile (σ, a) is credible if (σT0 , a0 ) ∈ P CP N E(Γ(T, σ−T )).
A PCPNE is a strategy profile that is immune to any credible coalitional deviation. An
outcome allocation for (σ ∗ , a∗ ) is a list (S(σ 1∗ ), a∗ , u, uG ) ∈ 2N × A × RN × R, where (u, uG )is the resulting utility allocation for players and the government.
There are two remarks to be made on PCPNE.
First, if a coalition T wants to deviate in the first stage, it can orchestrate the whole planof the deviation by assigning a new CPNE to each subgame so that the target allocation (bythe deviation) would be attained as a PCPNE of the reduced game Γ(T, σ−T ).
Second, the definition of PCPNE coincides with the coalition-proof Nash equilibrium(CPNE) in the (static) second stage. Thus, a CPNE needs to be assigned to each subgame.
There are useful characterizations of CPNE of a common agency game in the literature. The
first characterization is provided by Bernheim and Whinston (1986). Consider a subgame
S, and denote player i’s strategy in this subgame σi2 (S) : A → R+ by τi : A → R+ . They
introduce a concept, called truthful strategies, where τi is truthful relative to ā if and only
if for all a ∈ A either vi (a) − τi (a) = vi (ā) − τi (ā), or vi (a) − τi (a) < vi (ā) − τi (ā) withτi (a) = 0. A truthful Nash equilibrium (τS∗ , a∗ ) is a Nash equilibrium such that τi∗ is truthful
relative to a∗ ∈ A for all i ∈ S. Bernheim and Whinston (1986) show that (i) every truthful
Nash equilibrium is a CPNE, and (ii) the set of truthful equilibria and that of CPNE in
the utility space are equivalent, and provide a useful characterization of CPNE in the utility
space. Laussel and Le Breton (2001) further analyze CPNE in utility space. One of theirresults provides a nice characterization of CPNE when payoff functions satisfy a special (yet11Bernheim, Peleg, and Whinston (1987) define the PCPNE based on strictly improving coalitional deviations. We adopt, however, a definition based on weakly improving coalitional deviations, since the theorem
on menu auction in Bernheim and Whinston (1986), to which we appeal, uses CPNE based on weakly
improving deviation. For details on these two definitions, see Konishi, Le Breton, and Weber (1999).

15

useful) property, comonotonic payoff property: ui (a) ≥ ui (a0 ) if and only if uj (a) ≥ uj (a0 )for all i, j ∈ S and all a, a0 ∈ A. Obviously, this property is satisfied in our public goods
provision problem.
Fact. (Laussel and Le Breton, 2001) Consider a common agency problem Γ = (S, A, (T , vi )i∈S , C)played by the set S of the principals and the agent G with a comonotonic payoff property.
Then, in all CPNEs of the common agency game, agent G obtains uG = maxa∈A [−C(a)] (norent property), and the set of CPNE in utility space is equivalent to the core of the characterP
istic function game (Ṽ (T ))T ⊆S , where Ṽ (T ) = V (T ) − uG = maxa∈A
v
(a)
−
C(a)
−
i
i∈T
uG .
In the public goods provision problem, uG = −C(0) = 0, thus Ṽ (T ) = V (T ) for allP
T ⊆ S. A payoff vector uS = (ui )i∈S is in the core if and only if i∈S ui = V (S) andPi∈T ui ≥ V (T ) for all T ⊂ S.

4

The Main Result

This section shows our main result that the set of FRP-core allocations coincides with theset of PCPNE outcomes of the voluntary participation game. In the public goods provision
problem, the above Fact (Laussel and Le Breton, 2001) implies that the second-stage CPNE
outcomes coincide with the set of all core allocations of a characteristic function form game 12
P
for S with (V (T ))T ⊆S where V (T ) = maxa∈A
This is nothing buti∈T vi (a) − C(a) .
Foley’s (1970) core in a public goods economy for S. This observation gives us some insightfor our two-stage noncooperative game. First, for each subgame played by S 0 = S(σ 10 ), theutility outcome uS 0 must be in the core of (V (T ))T ⊆S 0 . Second, given the setup of our groupformation game in the first stage, if a CPNE outcome u in a subgame S can be realized as theequilibrium outcome (on the equilibrium path), it is necessary that u ∈ CoreF RP (S), sinceotherwise some member of S would deviate in the first stage obtaining a secured free-riding
12

Indeed, CPNE and strong Nash equilibrium (Aumann, 1959) with weakly improving deviations areequivalent in a common agency game with the no-rent property. See Konishi, Le Breton, and Weber (1999).

16

payoff. This observation is useful in our analysis of the equivalence theorem. With a carefulconstruction of equilibrium strategies, we can show the following.
Proposition 3. If an allocation (S, a∗ (S), u) is in the FRP-Core, then there is a PCPNE σ
whose outcome is (S, a∗ (S), u).
We relegate a proof of Proposition 3 to the Appendix B (with some preliminary analyses
in the Appendix A). Here, we briefly describe how to construct PCPNE σ.
First, in defining σ, we need to assign a CPNE utility profile to every subgame that
corresponds to a coalition S ⊆ N . Since the second-stage strategy profile is described byutility allocations assigned to each subgame, we partition the set of subgames (expressed interms of active players) S = {S ∈ 2N : S 6= ∅} into three categories: (i) S1 = {S ∗ } on theequilibrium path, which is the contribution group formed in equilibrium, (ii) S2 = {S ∈ S :S ∩ S ∗ = ∅}, and (iii) S3 = {S ∈ S\S1 : S ∩ S ∗ 6= ∅}. As Laussel and Le Breton (2001)
show, a CPNE outcome in a subgame S 0 corresponds to a core allocation for S 0 . To support
the equilibrium path (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ) ∈ CoreF RP by a PCPNE, we need to show that there
is no credible deviation in the first stage. This requires careful and nontrivial assignment ofa core allocation to every single subgame.
We prove Proposition 3 by contradiction. Consider a deviation from S ∗ by a coalition T ,which leads to the formation of a new contribution group S 0 . As Figure 1 shows, T consists ofplayers who change their first-stage actions ((i) and (ii) in the figure) and players who change
their second-stage actions ((iv) in the figure). Suppose to the contrary that this deviation iscredible. Then, for all members of T , both profitability of deviation and free-riding-proofness
must be satisfied. Thus, for every player i ∈ T , the post-deviation payoff u0i must satisfy u0i ≥
ūi = max{u∗i , vi (S 0 \{i})}, where u∗i denotes player i’s payoff in the prescribed equilibrium.
The case where S 0 ∩S ∗ 6= ∅ as depicted in Figure 1 is most subtle. We show that even in suchcases, if there were such a credible deviation, there would exist an allocation (S 0 , a∗ (S 0 ), u0 ) ∈CoreF RP (S 0 ) that Pareto-dominates (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ). By the characterization in Proposition
2, however, this contradicts the supposition that (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ) ∈ CoreF RP . We show
Pareto-domination by using the fact that the utility allocation assigned to subgame S 0 under17

σ is a core allocation, and construct the core allocation by the algorithm that is provided inAppendix A.
Once this direction of the relationship between the FRP-Core and PCPNE is established, the converse is trivial. The PCPNE requires free-riding-proofness, so every PCPNE
must be an FRP-Core allocation for some S. Since CoreF RP is the Pareto-frontier of∪S⊆N CoreF RP (S), Proposition 3 indeed implies that any Pareto-dominated FRP-Core allocation for S can be defeated by an FRP-Core allocation, which is supported by a PCPNE.

Theorem 2. An allocation (S, a∗ (S), u) is in the FRP-Core if and only if there is a PCPNE
σ whose outcome is (S, a∗ (S), u).
Proof. We prove the converse of the relationship described in Proposition 3, i.e., we showthat every PCPNE σ generates an FRP-Core allocation as its outcome. It is easy to seethat the outcome (S, a∗ (S), u) of a PCPNE σ is a FRP-Core allocation (and not just a core
allocation) for S, since otherwise a player would have an incentive to free-ride in the firststage of the extensive-form game and hence the resulting allocation will not be a PCPNE.
Thus, (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ CoreF RP (S). Now, suppose that u ∈/ CoreF RP . Then, there is an
FRP-Core allocation (S 0 , a∗ (S 0 ), u0 ) ∈ CoreF RP with u0 > u. Proposition 3 further implies
that a deviation by the grand coalition N that induces (S 0 , a∗ (S 0 ), u0 ) can attain u0 with a
PCPNE σ 0 . This means that there is a credible coalitional deviation from σ, which leads toa contradiction. Thus, every PCPNE achieves an FRP-Core allocation. This result crucially depends on the “comonotonicity of preferences” (Laussel and Le
Breton, 2003), and perfectly nonexcludable public goods (free-riders can fully enjoy public
goods). Without these assumptions, the above equivalence does not hold in general.
Although the FRP-Core is much easier to grasp than PCPNE, it may still not be clear
how the FRP-Core looks like. A simple example in the next section illustrates the properties
of FRP-Core allocations and thus the outcomes of PCPNE of our voluntary contribution
game.
18

5

An Example: Linear Utility and Quadratic Cost

Let vi (a) = θi a for any i ∈ N and C(a) = a2 /2, where θi > 0 is a preference parameter.
Here in this section, we identify players by their preference parameters, i.e., θi = i for anyi ∈ N . Then, the optimal level of the public good for group S is determined by the first-orderP
condition i∈S θi − a = 0, i.e.,Xa∗ (S) =θi .
i∈SConsequently, the value of S is written as!
V (S) =

X

θi

X

=

i∈S
2
P
θ
i
i∈S

θi

i∈S

2

!2

1
−
2

X

θi

i∈S

.

For an outsider j ∈ N \S, the payoff is!
vj (a∗ (S)) = θj

X

θi

.

i∈S

Consider the following example.
Example 1.

Let N = {11, 5, 3, 1}, where θi = i for each i ∈ N .

First we check if the grand coalition S = N is supportable. When S = N , we havePa∗ (N ) = i∈N i = 20, and V (N ) = 202 /2 = 200. For the allocation to be free-riding-proof,
each player must obtain the following payoff at the very least:v11 (a∗ (N \{11})) = (20 − 11) × 11 = 99,
v5 (a∗ (N \{5})) = (20 − 5) × 5 = 75,
v3 (a∗ (N \{3})) = (20 − 3) × 3 = 51,
v1 (a∗ (N \{1})) = (20 − 1) × 1 = 19.
The sum of all these values exceeds the value of the grand coalition V (N ). As a result, we
can conclude CoreF RP (N ) = ∅.
19• The FRP-Core for the grand coalition N may be empty. Thus, the FRP-Core may besuboptimal.
Next, consider S = {11, 5}. Then, a∗ (S) = 16, and V (S) = 128. In order to check if the
FRP-Core for S is nonempty, we first check again the free-riding incentives.
v(a∗ (S\{11})) = (16 − 11) × 11 = 55,v(a∗ (S\{5})) = (16 − 5) × 5 = 55.
Thus, if there is a FRP-Core allocation for S, u = (u11 , u5 ) must satisfy
u11 + u5 = 128,u11 ≥ 55,
u5 ≥ 55,
11 × 11= 60.5,
u11 ≥
2
5×5
u5 ≥
= 12.5,2where the last two conditions follow from the core requirement. That is, we have13
Core({11, 5})= {u ∈ R5+ : u11 + u5 = 128, u11 ≥ 60.5, u5 ≥ 12.5, u3 = 48, u2 = 32, u1 = 16},
andCoreF RP ({11, 5})= {u ∈ R5+ : u11 + u5 = 128, u11 ≥ 60.5, u5 ≥ 55, u3 = 48, u2 = 32, u1 = 16}.
It is readily seen that CoreF RP ({11, 5}) 6= ∅, but it is a smaller set than Core({11, 5}).
• Free-riding-proof constraints may narrow the set of attainable core allocations for a
coalition.
13

For notational simplicity, we abuse notations by dropping irrelevant arguments of allocations. Thus, inthis subsection, allocations are simply expressed by utility allocations.

20Note that in this case, only the free-riding incentive constraint for player 5 is binding. It isbetter for player 11 to provide public goods alone than free-riding on player 5. Now, let us analyze the FRP-Core. Since the FRP-Core requires Pareto-efficiency on theunion of FRP-Cores over all subsets S of the players, we first need to find the FRP-Core foreach S. In general, even a minimal task of checking the nonemptiness of the FRP-Core for
S is cumbersome, since the FRP-Core for S demands two almost unrelated requirements:
immunity to coalitional deviation attempts and to free-riding incentives. However, it is easy
to narrow down the candidates by using a necessary condition for the nonemptiness of the
FRP-Core for S.
Observation.

In the case of linear utility and quadratic cost, if the FRP-Core for S isnonempty, then S satisfies the following aggregate “no free-riding condition.”
Φ(S) ≡ V (S) −X

θi a∗ (S\{i})

i∈S

=

X
1
θi a∗ (S) − (a∗ (S))2 −θi a∗ (S\{i}) ≥ 0,
2
i∈S
i∈S

X

which is equivalent to
1
θi2 ≥
2
i∈S

X

!2
X

θi

.

i∈S

The proof is straightforward and hence omitted.
By utilizing this proposition, we can characterize the FRP-Core of the public goods
economy in Example 1.
Example 1. (Continued)

The FRP-Core allocations are attained by groups {11, 5, 1},{11, 3, 1}, {11, 5}, {11, 3}, and {5, 3}.
First, by applying Observation, we find that there are 12 contribution groups that satisfy
the necessary condition for the nonempty FRP-Core for S: {11, 5, 1}, {11, 3, 1}, {11, 5},{11, 3}, {11, 1}, {5, 3}, {5, 1}, {3, 1}, {11}, {5}, {3}, and {1}.

21The FRP-Core for S = {11, 5, 3} is empty, for example. For S = {11, 5, 3}, we havea∗ (S) = 19 and V (S) = 180.5. Since 11v(a∗ (S\{11})) = 88, 5v(a∗ (S\{5}) = 70, 3v(a∗ (S\{3})) =48, and 88 + 70 + 48 > 180.5, the necessary condition for S = {11, 5, 3} to give a FRP-Core
allocation is violated. As we will see, however, CoreF RP ({11, 5, 1}) is not empty. Thus
{11, 5, 1} is the group that achieves the highest level of public good while having a nonempty
FRP-Core. This analysis provides an interesting observation.
• (Even the largest) group that achieves a FRP-Core allocation may not be consecutive.14
The intuition behind this result is simple. Suppose Φ(S) is positive (say, S = {11, 5}).
Now, we try to find S 0 ⊃ S that still satisfies Φ(S 0 ) ≥ 0. If the value of Φ(S) is positive andyet not too large, then adding a player with a high θ (say, player 3) may make Φ(S 0 ) < 0, sinceadding such a player may greatly increase a∗ (S 0 ), making the free-riding problem severer.
On the contrary, adding a player with a low θ (say, player 1) does not make the free-rider
problem too severe, so Φ(S 0 ) ≥ 0 may be satisfied relatively easily.
Among the above 12 groups, it is easy to see that groups {5, 1}, {3, 1}, {11}, {5}, {3},and {1} do not survive the test of Pareto-domination. For example, consider S 0 = {11, 5}
and u0 = (73, 55, 48, 16) ∈ CoreF RP ({11, 5}). This is the best allocation for player 11 in
CoreF RP ({11, 5}) as the characterization of CoreF RP ({11, 5}) in the above indicates. Players
other than 11 and 5 are free-riders, and their payoffs are directly generated from a∗ ({11, 5}) =16. Now it is straightforward to see that the allocation u0 dominates all allocations for theabove six groups; public goods provision levels of those groups are insufficient compared witha∗ ({11, 5}) = 16.
On the contrary, {5, 3} is not dominated by any FRP-Core allocations for any contribution group. We can show that player 11 can obtain at most 73 in a FRP-Core allocation for
any S 3 11, whereas she obtains 88 by free-riding on {5, 3}. Thus, player 11 would not join
a deviation. Without player 11’s cooperation, no free-riding core allocation that dominates
those of {5, 3} can be realized.
14

Although the context and approach are very different from ours, the formation of such non-consecutive
coalitions has attracted tremendous interests in the fields of political science and sociology,. For a gametheoretical treatment of this line of literature (known and “Gamson’s law”), see Le Breton, et al. (2008).

22

Similarly, FRP-Core allocations for S = {11, 1} are dominated by the one for S 0 = {11, 5}.
Under S = {11, 1}, player 5 obtains 60, but S 0 can attain u0 = (63, 65, 48, 16). Free-ridingproof core allocations for {11, 3, 1} and {11, 3} cannot be beaten, however, by the ones for
S 0 = {11, 5}; player 5, for example, gets 70 even under {11, 3} while she would obtain at
most 67.5 under S 0 = {11, 5} as we can see from CoreF RP ({11, 5}) derived in the above.
Finally, consider S = {11, 5}, {11, 3}. The FRP-Core allocations for S = {11, 5} arecharacterized by u11 + u5 = 128, u11 ≥ 60.5 and u5 ≥ 55, with u3 = 48 and u1 = 16.
Now, consider S 0 = {11, 5, 1}, for which the FRP-Core allocations are characterized by
u011 + u05 + u01 = 144.5, u011 + u05 ≥ 128, u011 ≥ 66, u05 ≥ 60, and u01 ≥ 16, with u03 = 51.
(u05 + u01 ≥ 18 and u011 + u01 ≥ 72 are satisfied because u011 ≥ 66, u05 ≥ 60, and u01 ≥ 16.)
Here, S 0 can attain u011 + u05 = 144.5 − 16 = 128.5 as long as u011 ≥ 66 and u05 ≥ 60. Thus, if
u ∈ CoreF RP ({11, 5}) satisfies u11 + u5 = 128, 60.5 ≤ u11 ≤ 68.5, and 55 ≤ u5 ≤ 62.5, then u
is improved upon by an allocation in CoreF RP ({11, 5, 1}). However, if u ∈ CoreF RP ({11, 5})satisfies u11 + u5 = 128, u11 > 68.5, or u5 > 62.5, then u cannot be improved upon bygroup {11, 5, 1}. The FRP-Core allocations for S = {11, 3} have a similar property withpossible deviations by group S 0 = {11, 3, 1}. This phenomenon illustrates another interestingobservation:• An expansion of a group definitely increases the total value of the group, while it gives
less flexibility in allocating the benefits among the group members since free-riding
incentives increase as the level of the public goods provision rises. As a result, someunequal FRP-Core allocations for the original group may not be improved upon by thegroup expansion.
In summary, the FRP-Core is the union of the following sets of allocations attained by
the five different groups.
1. S = {11, 5, 1}; a∗ (S) = 17 and all FRP-Core allocations for S are included:
CoreF RP ({11, 5, 1})= {u ∈ R5+ : u11 + u5 + u1 = 144.5, u3 = 51, u11 ≥ 66, u5 ≥ 60, u1 ≥ 16.}23

2. S = {11, 3, 1}; a∗ (S) = 15 and all FRP-Core allocations for S are included:
CoreF RP ({11, 3, 1})= {u ∈ R5+ : u11 + u3 + u1 = 112.5, u5 = 75, u11 ≥ 60.5, u3 ≥ 36, u1 ≥ 14}.
3. S = {11, 5}; a∗ (S) = 16 and only a subset of FRP-Core allocations for S is included:u ∈ CoreF RP ({11, 5}) : u11 > 68.5 or u5 > 62.5= {u ∈ R5+ : u11 + u5 = 128, u3 = 48, u1 = 16, 68.5 < u11 ≤ 73 or 62.5 < u5 ≤ 67.5}

4. S = {11, 3}; a∗ (S) = 14 and only a subset of FRP-Core allocations for S is included:u ∈ CoreF RP ({11, 3}) : u11 > 62.5= {u ∈ R5+ : u11 + u3 = 98, u5 = 70, u1 = 14, 62.5 < u11 ≤ 65}
5. S = {5, 3}; a∗ (S) = 8 and all FRP-Core allocations for S are included:
CoreF RP ({5, 3})= {u ∈ R5+ : u5 + u3 = 32, u11 = 88, u1 = 8, u5 ≥ 15, u3 ≥ 15}

Before closing this section, we compare the FRP-Core allocations with a Nash equilibriumof a simultaneous-move voluntary public goods provision game studied by Bergstrom, Blume,
and Varian (1986). Each player i chooses her monetary contribution mi ≥ 0 to finance ap P
public good. The public goods provision level is given by a(m) = 2 i∈N mi reflecting
the cost function of public goods production C(a) = a2 /2. Consider player i. Given thatpothers contribute M−i in total, player i chooses mi so as to maximize θi 2 (mi + M−i ) − mi .
The best response for player i is m∗i = max {(θi2 /2) − M−i , 0}. It is easy to see that in our
example, only player 11 contributes, so the public goods provision level is 11.15 Thus, by
15
Contribution is made only by the highest willingness-to-pay player. This observation is true for all
quasi-linear utility players (with no income effect).

24

forming a contribution group in the first stage, it is possible to increase the equilibrium levelof the public goods provision. But it is also possible that the level of public goods provision islower than the Nash equilibrium provision level of the standard voluntary contribution game,as we have found that group {5, 3} achieves some FRP-Core allocations in our example.
• There may be FRP-Core allocations that achieve lower public goods provision levels
than the Nash equilibrium outcome of a simple voluntary contribution game studied by
Bergstrom, Blume, and Varian (1986).
This occurs because in our setup, player 11 can commit to being an outsider in the firststage, which cannot happen in a simultaneous-move voluntary contribution game. Finally,needless to say, we have:• The FRP-Core may be a highly nonconvex set as different allocations may be realized
by different contribution groups.

6

Replicated Economies

In this section, we analyze whether or not public goods provision and the participation rate
decrease as the economy is replicated.
There is a tricky issue in replicating a (pure) public goods economy. If the set of consumers is simply replicated, the amount of resources in the economy grows to infinity, while
maintaining the same cost function for public good production. Following Milleron’s (1972)
method, Healy (2007) makes each consumer’s endowment shrink proportionally to the population as the economy is replicated to overcome this problem; consumers’ preferences arealso modified in the replication process.16 We adopt the same preference modification in thereplication of a quasi-linear economy. We shrink each consumer’s willingness-to-pay proportionally as the economy is replicated. This way of replication is natural for a quasi-linear
economy, since the aggregate willingness-to-pay and cost functions stay the same in thereplication process.
16

Conley (1994) uses a different definition of replicated economy, and investigates the convergence of the
core.

25

The original economy is a list E = (N, (vi )i∈N , C). Let r = 1, 2, 3, ... be a natural number.
The rth replica of E is a list E r = (N r , (virq )i∈N,q=1,...,r , C), where N r = ∪i∈N {i1 , ..., ir } andvirq (a) = vir (a) = 1r vi (a) for all q = 1, .., r.17 Let a characteristic function form game generated
from E r be V r .
We analyze FRP-Core allocations (S, a∗ (S), u∗ ) of the characteristic function form gameV r by focusing on the free-riding-proofness condition. Note that for any r, and for any
S ⊆ N r , the public goods provision level a = a∗ (S) is determined so that the sum of
willingness-to-pay across all members of S equal the marginal cost of public goods provision,


P
P
∗
∗
r
r
0
r0
≥
i.e.,
iq ∈S viq (a (S)) − viq (a (S\{iq })iq ∈S viq (a) = C (a). Furthermore, we needC(a∗ (S)) in order to satisfy the free-riding-proofness, where the terms in the parentheses on
the left-hand side indicate how much each player can pay without sacrificing the free-ridingproofness. Let mi (S) ∈ {0, · · · , r} denote the number of type i players in S. Then, the abovenecessary condition for free-riding-proofness can be rewritten as
Xmi (S) (vir (a∗ (S)) − vir (a∗ (S\{iq }))) ≥ C(a∗ (S)),

i∈Nwhere it should be understood that S \ {iq } denote the set of all players but one player oftype i in S. Or equivalently,
X mi (S)i∈Nr[vi (a∗ (S)) − vi (a∗ (S\{iq }))] ≥ C(a∗ (S)).

(1)

Now, consider the kth replication, where k = 1, 2, · · ·, of this rth replica of the original
economy, which implies that each player in the rth replica of the original economy is divided
into k players. Let S k be a coalition in this k × rth replica economy that contains all k
replica players of all members of S in rth replica economy. Obviously, a∗ (S) in rth replica
economy equals a∗ (S k ) in k × rth replica economy. However, although the coefficients satisfymi (S)/r = mi (S k )/(kr), a∗ (S k \{i}) converges to a∗ (S k ) = a∗ (S) as k goes to infinity. Thus,
the k × rth replica economy’s counterpart of inequality (1) would be violated at some point.
Formally, we have the following result.
17

Let x and a denote the consumption level of a private good and the level of a public good, and let iand ri be preference relations in the original and rth replica economy, respectively. According to Milleron’s(1972) preference modification, relation ri is generated such that (x, a) ri (x0 , a0 ) if (rx, a) i (rx0 , a0 ). In
the quasi-linear economy where i is described by the utility function x + vi (a), this implies vir (a) = vi (a)/r.

26

Proposition 4. Suppose that C and vi are twice continuously differentiable for any i ∈ Nwith (i) C(0) = 0, C 0 (a) > 0, C 00 (a) > 0, and lima→0 C 0 (a) = 0, and (ii) vi0 (a) > 0 andvi00 (a) ≤ 0 for all i ∈ N . Then, for any ā > 0, there exists a natural number r̄(ā) such thatfor any r ≥ r̄(a), a∗ (S ∗ ) < ā holds for any (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ) ∈ CoreF RP (V r ) .
Together with Theorem 1, Proposition 4 immediately implies the following theorem.
Theorem 3. Suppose that C and vi are twice continuously differentiable for any i ∈ N with(i) C(0) = 0, C 0 (a) > 0, C 00 (a) > 0, and lima→0 C 0 (a) = 0, and (ii) vi0 (a) > 0 and vi00 (a) ≤ 0
for all i ∈ N . Then, the public goods provision levels for all FRP-Core allocations shrink tozero as the economy is replicated.
Although this result has some similarity to the main result of Healy (2007), the models
and the objectives are very different. Unlike our model, Healy requires that all players(voluntarily) participate in equilibrium, while he does not ask contribution groups to achieve
efficient provision of public goods. Thus, the reasons for the convergence are very different
in his and our papers. Note also that unlike Theorems 1 and 2, Theorem 3 (and Proposition
4) relies on concavity and convexity of utility and cost functions, respectively, as well as
differentiability of them.

7

Conclusion

This paper has added players’ participation decisions to a (pure) public goods provision
problem. We propose a free-riding-proof core (FRP-Core), which is a hybrid solution concept
based on credibility of coalitional deviations. The FRP-Core is always nonempty in public
good economy but does not usually achieve global efficiency. The FRP-Core has support
from both cooperative and noncooperative games. In particular, it is equivalent to the setof perfectly coalition-proof Nash equilibrium (Bernheim, Peleg, and Whinston, 1987) of a
dynamic game with participation decision followed by a common agency contribution game.
With a simple example, we have found that the equilibrium contribution group may not be27

consecutive (with respect to players’ willingness-to-pay), and the public good may be underprovided (compared with the case of voluntary contribution game studied by Bergstrom,
Blume and Varian, 1986, for example). Furthermore, public goods provision level decreases
to zero as the economy grows.
Although we have restricted our analysis to the public goods problem with transferable
utility (assuming that all players have quasi-linear utilities), we can extend our analysis to a
Gorman-form utility function (Bergstrom and Cornes, 1983) to allow the (positive) income
effect for the public goods.18 Suppose that player i’s preferences are represented by a utility
function of the form ui (a, x) = α(a)x + βi (a) for all i = 1, ..., n, while the government’s
utility is u0 (a, x) = α(a) (x − C(a)). As long as players have enough endowments such that
their budget constraints would not be binding, the characterization results of Bernheim andWhinston (1986) extend to this utility specification. We can show that if α(a) is nondecreasing, and the ratio βi (a)/α(a) is nondecreasing for all i ∈ N , the efficient public good
provision level a∗ (S) is nondecreasing with respect to group expansion, and hence the resulting game (V (S))S⊆N is a convex game. Thus, our equivalence theorem continues to holdin this class of public good economies. Relaxing the assumption on utility functions (evenfurther) is of interest, since then we would be able to examine how the income distribution
across players affects free-riding incentives and equilibrium public goods provision levels, forexample. Theorem 1 of our analysis extends to a general NTU game, indeed. In order toobtain our main equivalence result, however, we have appealed to the results obtained by
Bernheim and Whinston (1986) who analyze TU games. Thus, we first need to extend theiranalysis to NTU games to examine the equivalence between the FRP-Core and PCPNE. We
leave this interesting and nontrivial exercise to our future research.
18

We thank a referee for bringing our attention to this possible extension.

28

Appendix A: Preliminary Analysis on the Core of Convex GamesIn this appendix, we list a few useful preliminary results on the core of convex games. In
our public goods (comonotonic) domain, the characteristic-function game generated from a(public goods) economy is convex. Let V : 2N → R with V (∅) = 0 be a characteristicfunction form game. Game V is convex if V (S ∪ T ) + V (S ∩ T ) ≥ V (S) + V (T ) for all pairsPof subsets S and T of N . The core of game V is Core(N, V ) = {u ∈ RN : i∈N ui = V (N )P
and i∈S ui ≥ V (S) for all S ⊂ N }. Shapley (1971) analyzes the properties of the core ofconvex games in detail. One of his results useful for us is the following.

Property 1. (Shapley, 1971) Let ω : {1, · · · , |N |} → N be an arbitrary bijection, andlet uω(1) = V ({ω(1)}), uω(2) = V ({ω(1), ω(2)}) − V ({ω(1)}),..., and uω(|N |) = V (N ) −V (N \{ω(|N |)}). Then, u = (ui )i∈N ∈ Core(N, V ), and the set of all such allocations forms
the set of vertices of Core(N, V ).
Now, we consider a reduced game, in which outsiders always join coalitions and walk awaywith the payoffs they could obtain by forming their own coalition. Let T be a proper subset
of N . A reduced game of V on T is ṼT : 2T → R such that ṼT (S) = V (S ∪(N \T ))−V (N \T )for all S ⊆ T . We have the following result.
Property 2. Suppose that V : N → R is a convex game. Let uN \T = (ui )i∈N \T be a core
allocation of a game V : N \T → R. Then, uT ∈ Core(T, ṼT ) if and only if (uT , uN \T ) ∈Core(N, V ).
Proof. First, we show that uT ∈ Core(T, ṼT ) if (uT , uN \T ) ∈ Core(N, V ). Since (uT , uN \T ) ∈P
Core(N, V ),i∈S∪(N \T ) ui ≥ V (S ∪ (N \T )) holds for all S ⊂ T . Rewriting this, wePPhave i∈S ui ≥ V (S ∪ (N \T )) − i∈N \T ui = V (S ∪ (N \T )) − V (N \T ) = ṼT (S). Thus,uT ∈ Core(T, Ṽ ).

29

Second, we show that uT ∈ Core(T, ṼT ) implies (uT , uN \T ) ∈ Core(N, V ). Suppose thisis not the case. Then, there is S ⊂ N such that
V (S) >

X
i∈S

ui =

X

X

ui +

i∈S∩T

ui .

(2)

i∈S∩(N \T )Since uT ∈ Core(T, Ṽ ) and V is a convex game, we haveP

i∈S∩T ui

≥ V (S ∪ (N \T )) −V (N \T ) ≥ V (S) − V (S ∩ (N \T )). Substituting this inequality into (2), we have V (S) >P
V (S)−V (S∩(N \T ))+ i∈S∩(N \T ) ui , which leads to a contradiction since uN \T ∈ Core(N \T, V )P
implies i∈S∩(N \T ) ui ≥ V (S ∩ (N \T )). Now, we rewrite the core. Let u = (ui )i∈N be an arbitrary utility vector. Let
Q+ (u) = {S ∈ 2N :X

uj > V (S)},

j∈S
0

N

Q (u) = {S ∈ 2 :X

uj = V (S)},j∈S

Q− (u) = {S ∈ 2N :X

uj < V (S)}.

j∈S

That is, sets Q+ (u) and Q− (u) denote the collections of coalitions in which players as a whole
are satisfied and unsatisfied (in the strict sense) with the utility vector u, respectively. The set
Q0 (u) is the collection of coalitions in which players are just indifferent collectively between
deviating and not deviating. Obviously, a utility vector u is in the core, i.e., u ∈ Core(N, V ),if and only if Q− (u) = ∅ (or S ∈ Q+ (u) ∪ Q0 (u) for all S ∈ 2N ) and N ∈ Q0 (u). Let
P
η(S, u) ≡ [V (S) − i∈S ui ]/ |S| be the (per capita) shortage of payoff for coalition S for any
S ∈ Q− (u). Let
−
0
0
−
Q−
max (u) ≡ {S ∈ Q (u) : η(S, u) ≥ η(S , u) for all S ∈ Q (u)},

and
Q−
S.
max (u) = ∪S∈Q−
max (u)Using the above definitions, we now construct an algorithm that starts from an arbitrary
utility vector u and terminates with a core allocation û.
30

Algorithm. Let u ∈ RN and let V : N → R be a convex game. Let u(t) be the utility
vector at stage t ∈ R+ , and u(0) = u (the initial value).
(a) Suppose Q− (u) = ∅. Then, 2N \{∅} = Q0 (u) ∪ Q+ (u). If N ∈ Q0 (u(0)), then theP
algorithm terminates immediately. Otherwise, i∈N ui > V (N ) holds, and we reduceeach ui for i ∈ N \(∪S∈Q0 (u) S) continuously at a common speed as t increases.19 Since
all elements in Q0 (u) continue to be in Q0 (u(t)), while some of elements of Q+ (u(t))
switch to Q0 (u(t)) in the process, Q0 (u(t)) monotonically expands as t increases. Thus,
N ∈ Q0 (u(t̂)) occurs at some stage t̂. Then we terminate the process. The final
outcome is û = u(t̂).
(b) Suppose Q− (u) 6= ∅. There are two phases, starting with phase 1.
i. Phase 1: Start with u(0) = u. For all i ∈ Q−
max (u(t)), increase ui continuously at
a common speed. Terminate this phase of the algorithm when Q−
max (u(t)) = ∅ (orQ− (u(t)) = ∅), and call such t as t̃.20
ii. Phase 2: Now, Q− (u(t̃)) = ∅. Then, we go to the procedure in (a), and we reacha final outcome û = u(t̂) when N ∈ Q0 (u(t̂)) occurs. 
Let Q0 (u) ≡ ∪S∈Q0 (u) S, and defineW ≡ {i ∈ N : ∃t ≥ 0 with i ∈ Q−
max (u(t)) in phase 1 of case (b)},I ≡ {i ∈ N : i ∈ Q0 (u(0)) in case (a), or i ∈ Q0 (u(t̃))\W in case (b)},L ≡ {i ∈ N : i ∈/ Q0 (u(0)) in case (a), or i ∈/ Q0 (u(t̃)) in case (b)}.
These sets will be shown to be collections of players who gain, remain indifferent, and losein the above algorithm relative to the initial value u, respectively. By the construction of
the algorithm, the following Lemma is straightforward.
19

It follows from the definition of a convex game that ∪Q∈Q0 (u) Q = N implies N ∈ Q0 (u). To prove thisclaim, it suffices to show that if T, T 0 ∈ Q0 (u), then T ∪ T 0 ∈ Q0 (u) when Q− (u) = P∅ as is assumed.
P We have000from the definition of a convex game
that
V
(T
∪T
)+V
(T
∩T
)
≥
V
(T
)+V
(T
)
=
0 ui +i∈T∪T
i∈T ∩T 0 ui .
P
Since T ∩ T 0 P∈ Q0 (u) ∪ Q+ (u), i∈T ∩T 0 ui ≥ V (T ∩ T 0 ). Together with the above inequality, this implies
V (T ∪ T 0 ) ≥ i∈T ∪T 0 ui . Since Q− (u) = ∅, T ∪ T 0 ∈ Q0 (u).
20This process guarantees that every player i ∈ Q−
max (u(t)) at some stage t ∈ [0, t̃] must belong to some0
S ∈ Q0 (u(t̃)) at the end of phase 1.

31

Lemma 1. Set N is partitioned into W , I, and L: ûi > ui for all i ∈ W , ûi = ui for alli ∈ I, and ûi < ui for all i ∈ L.
Proof. Note that the payoff for any player in W does not change in phase 2 of case (b) as
W ⊆ ∪S∈Q0 (u(t̃)) S. Thus, for all i ∈ W , ûi > ui . Given this, the rest is obvious. This lemma identifies the winners, unaffected players, and losers of the algorithm as sets W ,I, and L, respectively.
Lemma 2. Consider the above algorithm. In phase 1 of case (b), Q−
max (u(t)) monotonically
expands as t increases for t ∈ [0, t̃). This phase terminates with Q− (u(t̃)) = ∅. Moreover,00
W = limt→t̃ Q−
max (u(t)) ∈ Q (u(t̃)), and W ∈ Q (u(t̂)).

Proof. As t increases, the payoffs of all members of Q−
max (u(t)) increase at the same speed;
thus for any S ∈ Q−
max (u(t)), η(S, u(t)) decreases at the same speed. Note that for all other−coalitions T ∈/ Q−
max (u(t)), η(T, u(t)) decreases at a slower pace (if T ∩ Qmax (u(t)) 6= ∅) or−stays constant (if T ∩ Q−
max (u(t)) = ∅). Therefore, Qmax (u(t)) monotonically expands as tincreases. This monotonic utility-raising process continues until Q− (u(t)) = ∅ realizes at−
t = t̃. Since Q−
max (u(t)) monotonically expands, W = limt→t̃ Qmax (u(t)) holds.
0Now, we will show Q−
S ∈ Q−max (u) = ∪S∈Q−
max (u), which proves W ∈ Q (u(t̃))
max (u)and W ∈ Q0 (u(t̂)) (in phase 2 of case (b), payoffs of players in W are not affected). Let
S1 , S2 ∈ Q−
max (u) with S1 6= S2 . Let
PP
V (S1 ) − i∈S1 ui
V (S2 ) − i∈S2 ui
η̄ ≡
=
.
|S1 |
|S2 |
By convexity, it follows that
V (S1 ∪ S2 ) + V (S1 ∩ S2 ) ≥ V (S1 ) + V (S2 )= η̄ (|S1 | + |S2 |) +

X
i∈S1

Since
P
V (S1 ∩ S2 ) − i∈S1 ∩S2 ui≤ η̄,|S1 ∩ S2 |
32

ui +

X
i∈S2

ui .

we have
V (S1 ∪ S2 ) ≥ η̄ (|S1 | + |S2 |) +

X
i∈S1

ui +

X

ui − V (S1 ∩ S2 )i∈S2≥ η̄ (|S1 | + |S2 | − |S1 ∩ S2 |) +

X

ui +

i∈S1

X
i∈S2

ui −

X

ui ,

i∈S1 ∩S2

orP
V (S1 ∪ S2 ) − i∈S1 ∪S2 ui≥ η̄.
|S1 ∪ S2 |−Thus, S1 ∪ S2 ∈ Q−
max (u). Repeated application of the same argument proves Qmax (u) ∈Q−max (u). 
Lemma 3. Starting from any initial value u ∈ RN , this algorithm terminates with a core
allocation û ∈ Core(N, V ).

Proof. First, we show that case (a) terminates with a core allocation. To this end, wePneed only show that ∪S∈Q0 (u) S 6= N whenever i∈N ui > V (N ) (otherwise, the algorithmPterminates with an infeasible u). Suppose to the contrary thati∈N ui > V (N ), while∪S∈Q0 (u) S = N in case (a). Let S1 , S2 , ..., SK ∈ Q0 (u) be distinct subsets of N with ∪K
k=1 Sk =PP
N . Then, we have i∈S1 ui = V (S1 ) and i∈S2 ui = V (S2 ). By convexity, V (S1 ∪ S2 ) +P
P
V (S1 ∩ S2 ) ≥ V (S1 ) + V (S2 ) =i∈S1 ui +i∈S2 ui holds. By the construction of theP
algorithm, S1 ∩ S2 ∈ Q0 (u) or S1 ∩ S2 ∈ Q+ (u), i.e., V (S1 ∩ S2 ) ≤ i∈S1 ∩S2 ui holds. Thus,P
we have V (S1 ∪ S2 ) ≥ i∈S1 ∪S2 ui . Applying the same argument to S1 ∪ S2 and S3 , wePhave V (S1 ∪ S2 ∪ S3 ) ≥ i∈S1 ∪S2 ∪S3 ui , since (S1 ∪ S2 ) ∩ S3 ⊂ S3 implies (S1 ∪ S2 ) ∩ S3 ∈Q0 (u) or (S1 ∪ S2 ) ∩ S3 ∈ Q+ (u). Repeated application of the same argument generates
PP
V (N ) = V (∪K
k=1 Sk ) ≥i∈∪K Sk ui =i∈N ui . This is a contradiction. Thus, in casek=1(a), the algorithm terminates with a feasible allocation. Since u(t) changes continuously,N ∈ Q0 (û) holds, and û ∈ Core(N, V ).
Now, it follows from Lemma 2 that phase 1 of case (b) terminates with Q− (ũ) = ∅. Thus,
the same argument as in case (a) applies to phase 2 of case (b), leading to the conclusionthat û ∈ Core(N, V ) also in case (b). 
33

Appendix B: Proofs
Proof of Proposition 1.
First, we show that (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈ Core(T ) blocking (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ Core(S) impliesa∗ (S) < a∗ (T ). Since (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ Core(S), S ⊇ T cannot happen. Thus, we have
either (i) S $ T , or (ii) S " T and S # T . Case (i) implies a∗ (S) < a∗ (T ), since ifa∗ (S) = a∗ (T ), blocking cannot occur (core allocations are efficient for the contributiongroup). Thus, consider case (ii). Note that for all i ∈ T \S, we have u0i ≥ ui = vi (a∗ (S)).
Suppose to the contrary that a∗ (S) ≥ a∗ (T ) holds. Since
X

u0j =

X

j∈T

vj (a∗ (T )) − C(a∗ (T )),j∈T

we haveX

u0j =j∈T ∩SX

X

vj (a∗ (T )) − C(a∗ (T )) −

j∈T

u0i

i∈T \S=X

vj (a∗ (T )) − C(a∗ (T )) − j∈T ∩SX

u0i −i∈T \SX

vi (a∗ (T ))

i∈T \S


≤

X


X

vj (a∗ (T ∩ S)) − C(a∗ (T ∩ S)) − j∈T ∩Si∈T \S= V (T ∩ S) − 

u0i −

X

vi (a∗ (T ))

i∈T \SX

u0i −i∈T \SX

vi (a∗ (T )) .

i∈T \S

Since (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈ Core(T ), the contents of the above parenthesis is nonpositive.
X

u0i ≤

i∈T \SX

vi (a∗ (T )).

i∈T \S

Since a∗ (S) ≥ a∗ (T ), we have u0i ≥ vi (a∗ (S)) ≥ vi (a∗ (T )) for all i ∈ T \S. Thus, we conclude
u0i = vi (a∗ (S)) = vi (a∗ (T )) for all i ∈ T \S, and a∗ (S) = a∗ (T ).
This also implies
X

u0j = V (T ∩ S).

j∈T ∩S34

Since ui = vi (a∗ (S)) = u0i for all i ∈ T \S, none in coalition T is strictly better off by thisdeviation (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ). This is a contradiction. Thus, a∗ (T ) > a∗ (S) must hold.
Now, with the above result, it is easy to prove the rest. Since (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈ Core(T )blocks (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ Core(S), and a∗ (T ) > a∗ (S), it is clear that (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) weakly
Pareto-dominates (S, a∗ (S), u). Proof of Proposition 2.
Pick a coalition S̄ that achieves the highest level of public good provision among the coalitions that support CoreF RP . There exists such S̄, since the number of coalitions is finite. By Proposition 1, if (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ CoreF RP (S) is weakly blocked by (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈CoreF RP (T ), then a∗ (S) < a∗ (T ). Thus, no allocation in CoreF RP (S̄) is not weakly blocked
by any other allocations in ∪S 0 ∈2N CoreF RP (S 0 ). Thus, CoreF RP (S̄) ⊆ ∪S 0 ∈2N CoreF RP (S 0 ) =CoreF RP . This implies that CoreF RP is nonempty. Proof of Theorem 1.
Let Core X F RP , S= {(S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ X F RP : ∀T ⊆ S, ∀(T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈ X F RP , ∃i ∈T s.t. u0i < ui }. This is a collection of FRP and efficient allocations for S that are immune
to nested FRP and efficient deviations. We first claim Core X F RP , S= CoreF RP (S).

Since for CoreF RP (S), coalitional deviations are not required to be FRP, it is obvious that
Core X F RP , S ⊇ CoreF RP (S) holds. To see the opposite direction, we only need to showthat FRP condition is not binding for nested deviations. For this, notice that a∗ (T ) ≤ a∗ (S)holds for all T ⊂ S. That is, vi (a∗ (T \{i})) < vi (a∗ (S\{i})) holds for all i ∈ T , which implies
that if ui ≥ vi (a∗ (S\{i})) then ui ≥ vi (a∗ (T \{i})) holds for all i ∈ T . This implies that
all coalitional deviations that blocks (S, a∗ (S), u) must at least satisfy FRP condition. This
proves our first claim, Core X F RP , S = CoreF RP (S).
Now, let us consider non-nested coalitional deviations. Pick (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ CoreF RP (S) =Core X F RP , S . If for all nonnested T , (S, a∗ (S), u) is not blocked by any (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈CoreF RP (T ), then (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ CoreF RP holds since (S, a∗ (S), u) is immune to nested
deviations.

Now, if (S, a∗ (S), u) is not blocked by all (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈ X F RP (T ), then35

(S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ Core X F RP

holds. Since CoreF RP (T ) ⊆ X F RP (T ) for all T , for an al-

location (S, a∗ (S), u) to be in Core X F RP , it needs to be immune to more deviations thanto be in CoreF RP (S). Thus, clearly, CoreF RP ⊇ Core X F RP

holds. We will show the

opposite direction is also true in the following. Pick (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ Core X F RP , S=

CoreF RP (S) ⊆ CoreF RP , and T is not nested from S. Suppose that there is (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈X F RP (T )\CoreF RP (T ) such that u0i > ui for all i ∈ T . Then, there exists T 0 ⊂ T suchP
that i∈T 0 u0i < V (T 0 ). The FRP condition u0i ≥ vi (a∗ (T 0 \{i})) is trivially satisfied since
u0i ≥ vi (a∗ (T \{i})) for all i ∈ T 0 and T ⊃ T 0 . However, this implies that there exists (T 0 , a∗ (T 0 ), u00 ) ∈ X F RP (T 0 ) with u00i > u0i for all i ∈ T 0 that blocks (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈Core X F RP , S= CoreF RP (S). If (T 0 , a∗ (T 0 ), u00 ) ∈/ CoreF RP (T 0 ), then again there ex-0000ists T 00 ⊂ T 0 with (T 00 , a∗ (T 00 ), u000 ) ∈ X F RP (T 00 ) and u000
i > ui for all i ∈ T that blocks(S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ Core X F RP , S = CoreF RP (S). This process must stop since T ⊃ T 0 ⊃ T 00 ⊃... and X F RP ({i}) = CoreF RP ({i}) = ({i}, a∗ ({i}), vi (a∗ ({i})−C({i}), (vj (a∗ {i}))j6=i ). Thus,
there exists T 000 ⊂ T , and (T 000 , a∗ (T 000 ), u0000 ) ∈ CoreF RP (T 000 ) that blocks (S, a∗ (S), u). This
proves that whenever (S, a∗ (S), u) is blocked by nonnested T via (T, a∗ (T ), u0 ) ∈ X F T P (T ),it is also blocked by some T 000 ⊂ T via (T 000 , a∗ (T 000 ), u0000 ) ∈ CoreF RP (T 000 ). This completes
the proof of CoreF RP = Core X F RP . 

Proof of Proposition 3.
First, we construct a strategy profile σ, which will be shown to support (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ),where u∗ ∈ CoreF RP (S ∗ ), as a PCPNE. In defining σ, we assign a CPNE utility profile toevery subgame S 0 . Then, we show by way of contradiction that there is no credible andprofitable deviation from σ.
A strategy profile in the second stage σ 2 is generated from utility allocations assigned ineach subgame (we utilize truthful strategies that support utility outcomes). We partition theset of subgames S = {S 0 ∈ 2N : S 0 6= ∅} into three categories: S1 = {S ∗ } on the equilibrium
path, S2 = {S 0 ∈ S : S 0 ∩ S ∗ = ∅}, and S3 = {S 0 ∈ S\S1 : S 0 ∩ S ∗ 6= ∅}. As Laussel and Le
Breton (2001) show, a CPNE outcome in a subgame S 0 corresponds to a core allocation for36

S 0 . In order to support the equilibrium path (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ), we need to show that there isno credible deviation in the first stage. Since a credible deviation requires both free-ridingproofness and profitability, utility level ūi = max{u∗i , vi (S 0 \{i})} plays an important role as
to whether or not player i joins a coalitional deviation.
We construct a core allocation for subgame S 0 with the algorithm described in the Appendix A, starting with the initial value ū. Then we show that if there exists a credible deviation by coalition T , which induces (S 0 , a∗ (S 0 ), u0 ) from (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ), then (S \S ∗ , a∗ (S \ S ∗ ), (u0i )i∈S 0 \S ∗ , (vj (a∗ (S 0 \ S ∗ )))j6∈S 0 \S ∗ ) ∈ CoreF RP (S 0 \ S ∗ ) and Pareto-dominates(S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ). This is a contradiction to the presumption that (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ) ∈ CoreF RP .
Thus, we will conclude that there is no credible deviation from (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ).
The construction of the core allocation for each subgame is as follows.
1. We assign (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ) ∈ CoreF RP to the on-equilibrium subgame S ∗ .
2. For any S 0 with S 0 ∩ S ∗ = ∅, we assign an extreme point of the core for S 0 of aconvex game. For an arbitrarily selected order ω over S 0 , we assign payoff vectoruω(1) = V ({ω(1)}) − V (∅), uω(2) = V ({ω(1), ω(2)}) − V ({ω(1)}), and so on, following
Shapley (1971). Call this allocation ûS 0 ∈ Core(S 0 , V ) (see Property 1 in the Appendix
A).
3. For any S 0 with S 0 ∩ S ∗ 6= ∅, we assign a core allocation in the following manner. It requires a few steps. First, we deal with the outsiders S 0 \ S ∗ . Let ω :{1, · · · , |S 0 \S ∗ |} → S 0 \S ∗ be an arbitrary bijection, and let ûω(1) = V ({ω(1)}), ûω(2) =V ({ω(1), ω(2)}) − V ({ω(1)}), · · · , ûω(|S 0 \S ∗ |) = V (S 0 \S ∗ ) − V ((S 0 \S ∗ )\{ω(|S 0 \S ∗ |)}).
Such a core allocation minimizes the total payoffs for S 0 \S ∗ (Shapley, 1971). The
rest V (S 0 ) − V (S 0 \S ∗ ) goes to S 0 ∩ S ∗ .

Consider a reduced game of (S 0 , V ) on0∗

S 0 ∩ S ∗ with uS 0 \S ∗ as given above and ṼS 0 ∩S ∗ : 2S ∩S → R such that ṼS 0 ∩S ∗ (Q) =P
V (Q ∪ (S 0 \S ∗ )) − j∈S 0 \S ∗ uj = V (Q ∪ (S 0 \S ∗ )) − V (S 0 \S ∗ ). By Property 2, we knowthat uS 0 ∩S ∗ ∈ Core(S 0 ∩ S ∗ , ṼS 0 ∩S ∗ ) if and only if (uS 0 ∩S ∗ , uS 0 \S ∗ ) ∈ Core(S 0 , V ). For
each i ∈ S 0 ∩ S ∗ , let ūi = max{u∗i , vi (S 0 \{i})}. By the algorithm in Appendix A, we37construct a core allocation ûS 0 ∩S ∗ from vector ūS 0 ∩S ∗ = (ūi )i∈S 0 ∩S ∗ for the reduced game0

ṼS 0 ∩S ∗ of game V : 2S → R.
We support these core allocations by truthful strategies. Let σi1 = 1 for i ∈ S ∗ , and σi1 = 0
for i ∈
/ S ∗ . Let σi2 [S ∗ ] be a truthful strategy relative to a∗ (S ∗ ) such that σi2 [S ∗ ](a∗ (S ∗ )) =vi (a∗ (S ∗ )) − u∗i for all i ∈ S ∗ , and let σi2 [S 0 ] be a truthful strategy relative to a∗ (S 0 ) with
σi2 [S 0 ](a∗ (S 0 )) = vi (a∗ (S 0 )) − ûi (S 0 ) for all i ∈ S 0 . Since a core allocation with truthfulstrategies is assigned to every subgame, it is a CPNE. If there is a deviation from σ, therefore,
it must happen in the first stage.
Suppose to the contrary that there exists a coalition T that profitably and credibly
deviates from the equilibrium σ. Note that in the reduced game played by T , it must be a
PCPNE deviation with σT0 for given σ−T . In the original equilibrium, S ∗ is the contributiongroup. This implies that every i ∈ (N \S ∗ )\T plays σi1 = 0, i.e., free-riding, in the first stage,
while every i ∈ S ∗ \T plays σi1 = 1 in the first stage and engages in the same strategy, i.e.,
the prescribed menu σi2 (S 0 ) contingent to group S 0 , in the second stage. Any i ∈ T \S ∗ haschosen σi1 = 0 but chooses σi10 = 1 upon deviation in the first stage. Whereas i ∈ T ∩ S ∗ may
or may not choose σi10 = 1. Some may choose to free-ride by switching to 0, while others
stay in the contribution group, adjusting their strategies in the second stage. To summarize,
1
let S 0 be the contribution group formed as a result of T ’s deviation, i.e., S 0 = S(σ−T, σT10 ).

Then, there are five groups of players to be considered (see Figure 1).
(i) the members of S ∗ \S 0 ⊂ T that switch to free-riding after the deviation,(ii) the members of S 0 \S ∗ ⊂ T that join the contribution group upon deviation,(iii) the members of (S ∗ ∩ S 0 )\T ⊂ S 0 that still participate in the contribution group after
the deviation, with the same prescribed menu in the second stage,(iv) the members of (S ∗ ∩ S 0 ) ∩ T ⊂ S 0 that change their strategies in the second stage,(v) the members of N \(S 0 ∪ S ∗ ) that are outsiders both before and after the deviation.

38

Let the resulting allocation be (S 0 , a∗ (S 0 ), u0 ). Since the deviation is profitable and credible, the members of T , i.e., those who are categorized in (i), (ii), and (iv) are better off after
the deviation. That is,vi (a∗ (S 0 )) ≥ u∗i for all i ∈ S ∗ \S 0 ,u0i ≥ ūi for all i ∈ S 0 \S ∗ ,u0i ≥ ūi for all i ∈ (S ∗ ∩ S 0 ) ∩ T ,where ūi = max{u∗i , vi (a∗ (S 0 \{i})}.
Given our supposition, the following claims must be true.
First we claim that members of (ii) exist and that a∗ (S 0 ) > a∗ (S ∗ ) as they are better off
after the deviation. The set of players in (ii) is nonempty, since otherwise S 0 ⊂ S ∗ and acoalitional deviation by T cannot be profitable as (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ) is a core allocation. This
result is from Proposition 1.
Claim 1. S 0 \S ∗ 6= ∅ and a∗ (S 0 ) > a∗ (S ∗ ).
Since all players use truthful strategies in the strategy profile σ even after T ’s deviation,
the members in (iii) (outsiders of T ) obtain the same payoff vector û(S ∗ ∩S 0 )\T (S 0 ) as in theoriginal subgame CPNE for S 0 . It is because in subgame S 0 (even after deviation), a∗ (S 0 )must be provided as a CPNE (core) must be assigned to the subgame. Thus, we have thefollowing for group (iii).
Claim 2. After the deviation by T , every i ∈ (S ∗ ∩ S 0 )\T ⊂ S 0 receives exactly u0i = ûi .

Since u0 needs to be a CPNE payoff vector in the second stage of the reduced game byP
T , we have i∈S 0 \S ∗ u0i ≥ V (S 0 \S ∗ ) for uS 0 to be in Core(S 0 , V ). By the construction of ûS 0 ,Pon the other hand, we have i∈S 0 \S ∗ ûi = V (S 0 \S ∗ ). Thus, we have the following for group(ii).
Claim 3.

00∗i∈S 0 \S ∗ ui ≥ V (S \S ) =P

Pi∈S 0 \S ∗ ûi .

39

The next claim shows that the counterpart of Claim 3 holds for group (iv).
Claim 4.

P0
i∈S 0 ∩S ∗ ∩T ui =Pi∈S 0 ∩S ∗ ∩T ûi

Proof of Claim 4. Group (iv) consists of members of W , I, and L. Note that u0i ≥ ūi for
any i ∈ S 0 ∩ S ∗ ∩ T since otherwise they would have no incentive to join the deviation.
First consider the set W of winners in group (iv); we have ûi ≥ ūi by the definition of
W . The contribution group S 0 must be immune to a coalitional deviation by W , so we haveX

u0i ≥ Ṽ (W ) =

i∈W

X

ûi ,

i∈W

where the equality holds by Lemma 2. As for players in I, we have ûi = ūi by definition.
Thus, it follows from u0i ≥ ūi that u0i ≥ ûi for any i ∈ I. Payoffs for losers, by definition,must satisfy ûi < ūi , so we have u0i > ûi because u0i ≥ ūi . However, it follows from Claim 2,
P
P
Claim 3, and i∈S 0 u0i = i∈S 0 ûi = V (S 0 ) that
X

X

u0i ≤

ûi .

(3)

i∈S 0 ∩S ∗ ∩Ti∈S 0 ∩S ∗ ∩T

P
PPP
Together with i∈W u0i ≥ i∈W ûi and i∈I u0i ≥ i∈I ûi , these implies that L is empty, andPPP
hence i∈S 0 ∩S ∗ ∩T u0i ≥ i∈S 0 ∩S ∗ ∩T ûi . Consequently, we have from (3) that i∈S 0 ∩S ∗ ∩T u0i =Pi∈S 0 ∩S ∗ ∩T ûi . 

Claims 2, 3, and 4 immediately imply the following for group (ii).
Claim 5.

0i∈S 0 \S ∗ ui =P0∗
i∈S 0 \S ∗ ûi = V (S \S ).

P

The final claim follows from Claim 5 and the supposition that the deviation by T is
profitable and credible.
Claim 6. Consider a deviation by S 0 ∪ S ∗ such that S 0 \ S ∗ is the resulting contribution group (all members in S ∗ stop contributing). Then the allocation (S 0 \ S ∗ , a∗ (S 0 \F RPS ∗ ), (u0i )i∈S 0 \S ∗ , (vj (a∗ (S 0 \S ∗ )))j ∈S(S 0 \S ∗ ) and Pareto-dominates (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ).
/ 0 \S ∗ ) is in Core

Proof of Claim 6. Since the deviation by T is profitable, we haveXvi (a∗ (S 0 \S ∗ )) − C(a∗ (S 0 \S ∗ )) = V (S 0 \S ∗ )i∈S 0 \S ∗

40

=

X

u0i

i∈S 0 \S ∗>Xvi (a∗ (S ∗ )).

i∈S 0 \S ∗Thus, we have

P

∗
0
∗
i∈S 0 \S ∗ vi (a (S \ S )) >

P

∗
∗
∗
0
∗
∗
∗
i∈S 0 \S ∗ vi (a (S )), and hence a (S \ S ) > a (S ).

Now, since the deviation by T is credible, and hence u0i ≥ vi (a∗ (S 0 \ {i})) ≥ vi (a∗ ((S 0 \ S ∗ ) \{i})) for any i ∈ S 0 \ S ∗ , Claim 5 implies that (S 0 \ S ∗ , a∗ (S 0 \ S ∗ ), (u0i )i∈S 0 \S ∗ , (vj (a∗ (S 0 \F RPS ∗ )))j ∈S(S 0 \ S ∗ ).
/ 0 \S ∗ ) ∈ Core∗
Next, we show that ((u0i )i∈S 0 \S ∗ , (vj (a∗ (S 0 \ S ∗ )))j ∈S/ 0 \S ∗ ) Pareto-dominates u . First, theprofitability of the deviation by T immediately implies that u0i ≥ vi (a∗ (S ∗ )) = u∗i for anyi ∈ S 0 \ S ∗ . Thus, we have shown the Pareto-domination for group (ii). Pareto-domination
for group (v) is immediate from a∗ (S 0 \ S ∗ ) > a∗ (S ∗ ). As for groups (i), (iii), and (iv), i.e.,
for all i ∈ S ∗ , we first note that since u∗ ∈ Core(S ∗ ) and the game V is convex, we haveu∗i ≤ V (S ∗ ) − V (S ∗ \{i}) (Shapley, 1971). Now,
V (S ∗ ) − V (S ∗ \{i})=X

vj (a∗ (S ∗ )) − C(a∗ (S ∗ )) − 

j∈S ∗


X

vj (a∗ (S ∗ \{i})) − C(a∗ (S ∗ \{i}))

j∈S ∗ \{i}< vi (a∗ (S ∗ ))+X

vj (a∗ (S ∗ )) − C(a∗ (S ∗ )) − j∈S ∗ \{i}X

vj (a∗ (S ∗ \{i})) − C(a∗ (S ∗ \{i}))

j∈S ∗ \{i}< vi (a∗ (S 0 \S ∗ )),where the last inequality holds since∗∗j∈S ∗ \{i} vj (a) − C(a) is maximized at a = a (S \{i}).

PThis proves that all members of groups (i), (iii), and (iv) are better off in the allocation∗ ∗∗∗(S 0 \S ∗ , a∗ (S 0 \S ∗ ), (u0i )i∈S 0 \S ∗ , (vj (a∗ (S 0 \S ∗ )))j ∈S/ 0 \S ∗ ). Hence, we conclude that (S , a (S ), u ) ∈CoreF RP is Pareto-dominated by (S 0 \S ∗ , a∗ (S 0 \S ∗ ), (u0i )i∈S 0 \S ∗ , (vj (a∗ (S 0 \S ∗ )))j ∈S/ 0 \S ∗ ), whichis in CoreF RP (S 0 \S ∗ ). 
The statement of Claim 6 is an apparent contradiction to (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ) ∈ CoreF RP(see Proposition 2). Thus, we have shown that there is no profitable and credible deviationfrom the constructed strategy profile σ, so σ is a PCPNE. 
41

Proof of Proposition 4
Suppose to the contrary that for any natural number l, there exists r ≥ l such that
(Sr , a∗ (Sr ), u∗r ) ∈ CoreF RP (V r ) and a∗ (Sr ) ≥ ā. This implies that there exists an increasing
sequence of natural numbers r that satisfy (Sr , a∗ (Sr ), u∗r ) ∈ CoreF RP (V r ). We show that
(under this supposition) for any r with (Sr , a∗ (Sr ), u∗r ) ∈ CoreF RP (V r ) and any iq ∈ Sr ,a∗ (Sr \ {iq }) approaches a∗ (Sr ) as r → ∞, and hence the left-hand side of
X mi (S)i∈Nr[vi (a∗ (S)) − vi (a∗ (S\{iq }))] ≥ C(a∗ (S)).

(4)

diminishes to zero (since vi0 (a∗ (S)) ≤ vi0 (ā) < ∞). Since C(a∗ (S)) ≥ C(ā) > 0, this implies that (1) is violated eventually as r → ∞, which in turn leads to a contradiction to(Sr , a∗ (Sr ), u∗r ) ∈ CoreF RP (V r ).
Now, a∗ (Sr ), the public goods provision level induced by the contribution group Sr , ischosen so as to satisfy the first-order condition:
X mj (Sr )j∈Nwhere [mj (Sr )/r]vj0 (a) =Pr

vj0 (a∗ (Sr )) − C 0 (a∗ (Sr )) = 0,(5)r0
iq ∈S viq (a). For any r, the left-hand side of (5) is continuous andstrictly decreasing in the public goods provision level a since vj00 ≤ 0 and C 00 > 0 (as Figure
2 illustrates). Similarly, for any iq ∈ Sr , the optimality of public goods provision requiresthat a∗ (Sr \ {iq }) satisfy
X mj (Sr \ {iq })rj∈N

vj0 (a∗ (Sr \ {iq })) − C 0 (a∗ (Sr \ {iq })) = 0,(6)or equivalently
X mj (Sr )rj∈Nvj0 (a∗ (Sr \ {iq })) −vi0 (a∗ (Sr \ {iq }))− C 0 (a∗ (Sr \ {iq })) = 0,rwhere the second term in the second equation represents the free-rider iq ’s marginal benefit
from the public goods provision.
Now, we claim that for any  ∈ (0, ā), there exists a positive integer r such that for any
r ≥ r ,X mj (Sr )j∈Nrvj0 (a∗ (Sr ) − ) −vi0 (a∗ (Sr ) − )
− C 0 (a∗ (Sr ) − ) > 0,r
42

i.e., the left-hand side of (6), evaluated at a = a∗ (Sr ) −  instead of a∗ (Sr \ {iq }), is positive
as Figure 2 shows. Together with vj00 ≤ 0 and C 00 > 0, this implies that a∗ (Sr \ {iq }) ∈(a∗ (Sr ) − , a∗ (Sr )), which in turn implies the convergence of a∗ (Sr \ {iq }) to a∗ (Sr ).
To show the claim, we first define the minimum C 00 over the relevant range as c ≡mina∈[0,a∗ (N )] C 00 (a). It follows from C 00 > 0 that c > 0. Now, for any r, it follows from (5)and Taylor’s formula that there exists a0 ∈ [a∗ (Sr ) − , a∗ (Sr )] such that
X mj (Sr )
r

j∈N

=

vj0 (a∗ (Sr ) − ) − C 0 (a∗ (Sr ) − )X mj (Sr )
r

j∈N

"
−

vj0 (a∗ (Sr )) − C 0 (a∗ (Sr ))X mj (Sr )j∈N"=  C 00 (a0 ) −r#
vj00 (a0 ) − C 00 (a0 )X mj (Sr )
j∈N

r

#
vj00 (a0 )≥ c,where we have used vj00 ≤ 0 to derive the last inequality. On the other hand, it follows fromvi0 (a∗ (Sr ) − ) ≤ vi0 (ā − ) (as a∗ (Sr ) > ā) that there exists r such thatvi0 (a∗ (Sr ) − )v 0 (ā − )
c
≤ i
<
r
r
2
holds for any r ≥ r . Then the claim follows immediately since
X mj (Sr )j∈Nrvj0 (a∗ (Sr ) − ) −vi0 (a∗ (Sr ) − )c
− C 0 (a∗ (Sr ) − ) > c −
r
2
> 0.

Now, we have from mi (Sr ) ≤ r and the claim established above that
X mi (Sr )
i∈N

≤

r
X

[vi (a∗ (Sr )) − vi (a∗ (Sr \ {iq }))][vi (a∗ (Sr )) − vi (a∗ (Sr \ {iq }))] → 0 as r → ∞.

i∈N∗

Since C(a (S)) > C(ā) > 0, we have shown that there exists r̄(ā) such that for any r ≥ r̄(ā),
the free-riding-proofness condition (1) fails to be satisfied, which implies that a∗ (S ∗ ) < ā forany (S ∗ , a∗ (S ∗ ), u∗ ) ∈ CoreF RP (V r ) when r ≥ r̄(ā).
43Appendix C
In this appendix, we provide some logical relationships between PCPNE of our game andother equilibrium concepts of (possibly other) noncooperative coalition formation games.
For the sake of simplicity, we assume that the TU game generated from the public goods
provision game is not only a convex game but also a strictly convex game (i.e., inequalities
are strict). This is not at all a restrictive assumption when the public good space is thenonnegative real line.
First note that even within our game, PCPNE is different from a subgame perfect Nashequilibrium (SPNE) with a coalition-proof Nash equilibrium (CPNE) assigned to each subgame (i.e., a Nash equilibrium in the participation game with a CPNE assigned to eachsubgame of the contribution stage). In PCPNE, when a group of players deviate in the firststage, they can coordinate their strategies in the following subgames in order to support atarget outcome (as long as such deviation strategy profile is credible in the recursive sense).
In contrast, in SPNE, only a single player can change her strategy in the first stage andalso in the following subgame. Since an equilibrium strategy is taken in each subgame, thedeviating player has no incentive to switch her strategies in the subgames. Thus, giventhat a CPNE is assigned to every subgame, we need only check if there exists a unilateraldeviation incentive in the first stage in order to see if a given strategy profile for the entire
game is SPNE. This distinction makes a big difference. In the following, we will compare theset of equilibrium outcomes of various rules of games including (noncooperative) coalition
bargaining games.
In this paper, we have analyzed CoreF RP (S) for S ⊆ N , CoreF RP , and P CP N E of ourvoluntary-participation game with common agency games as the second-stage subgames. Recall that we have found that PCPNE of our game is equivalent to CoreF RP and CorehX F RP i.
Here, we consider the following other possible games and equilibrium concepts:
1. SPNE with CPNE of the common agency game, i.e., Nash equilibrium (NE) of ourvoluntary-participation game with CPNE assigned to each common agency subgame.

44

2. SPNE with the strong Nash equilibrium (SNE) of the common agency game, i.e., NE of
our voluntary-participation game with SNE assigned to each common agency subgame.
3. Perfect strong Nash equilibrium (PSNE), i.e., SNE of our voluntary-participation gamewith SNE assigned to each common agency subgame.
4. SPNE with the stationary subgame perfect Nash equilibrium (SSPNE) of Perry and
Reny’s (1994) or Moldovanu and Winter’s (1995) noncooperative coalition bargaining
games in the second stage that follows the voluntary participation game in the firststage.
We restrict our attention to the open-membership participation game in the first stage sincevoluntary participation in the common agency contribution game is of our primary interest.
We will show the logical relationship that is schematically described in Figure 3.
Claim 1. Games 1, 2, and 4 generate a common set of outcomes that includes P CP N E =CoreF RP of our game. This inclusion relationship is strict in general.
Proof. In our common agency (sub)game, the set of CPNE outcomes, the set of SNE
outcomes, and the core of the TU game generated from our public good economy are all
equivalent. Perry and Reny (1994) show that the core of a TU game is implementable
by a noncooperative coalitional bargaining game when it is totally balanced. Similarly,
Moldovanu and Winter (1995) show that the core of an NTU game is implementable bytheir noncooperative coalitional bargaining game when the NTU game has nonempty corein all subgames. Thus, in the subgame S ⊆ N of games 1, 2 and 4 generate Core(S). The
sets of outcomes of these three games are the same, since the Nash equilibrium concept is
adopted in the first stage voluntary participation game of all the three.
As for the comparison with P CP N E = CoreF RP , it is clear that every PCPNE allocation
is included in the outcome allocations of the above three games, since the perfectness of
PCPNE is more demanding than Nash equilibrium.
We show that this inclusion relationship is strict with the example in the main text.
Since the TU game generated from the public goods provision problem is convex, we can45

utilize Property 1 of the Appendix A (Shapley, 1972). That is, the worst core allocation foreach player i is V ({i}) in any convex games. First, consider singleton coalition S = {11}as the contribution group. In this case, a∗ ({11}) = 11 and V ({11}) = 60.5. The uniqueallocation of Core(S) is (S, a∗ (S), u) = ({11}, 11, (60.5, 55, 33, 11)). Although it does notbelong to CoreF RP (or the set of allocations in PCPNE), we can support it as a subgame
perfect Nash equilibrium of games 1, 2, and 4. Since the participation stage just demands
being a Nash equilibrium in these three games, we only need to consider three subgames
S 0 = {11, 1}, S 00 = {11, 3}, and S 000 = {11, 5}, which yield V (S 0 ) = 72, V (S 00 ) = 98, andV (S 000 ) = 128, respectively. We assign an extreme point of the core to each of subgames
000
S 0 , S 00 , and S 000 : (u011 , u01 ) = (71.5, 0.5), (u0011 , u003 ) = (93.5, 4.5), and (u00011 , u5 ) = (115.5, 12.5),

respectively. Clearly, none of 1, 3, and 5 has an incentive to deviate. Thus, the allocation(S, a∗ (S), u) = ({11}, 11, (60.5, 55, 33, 11)) is in SPNE of games 1, 2 and 4. 
Claim 2. Game 3 generates the set of outcomes that is included in P CP N E = CoreF RP
of our game. Moreover, it is empty unless there is a grand coalition free-riding-proof core
allocation.
Proof. Clearly, P SN E ⊂ P CP N E since SN E ⊂ CP N E. In the public goods provision problem, for all S $ N and all (S, a∗ (S), u) ∈ Core(S), there is an allocation(N, a∗ (N ), u0 ) ∈ Core(N ) with u0 > u; the grand coalition with this allocation blocks the allocation (S, a∗ (S), u). Thus, unless there is an FRP-Core allocation with the grand coalition,
PSNE is an empty set. 

References[1] Aumann, R., 1959, “Acceptable Points in General Cooperative N -Person Games,” in
H.W. Kuhn and R.D. Luce eds., Contributions to the Theory of Games IV, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 287-324.
[2] Bergstrom, T., L. Blume, and H. Varian, 1986, “On the Private Provision of Public
Goods,” Journal of Public Economics 29, 25-49.
46

[3] Bergstrom, T.C. and R.C. Cornes, 1983, “Independence of Allocative Efficiency from
Distribution in the Theory of Public Goods,” Econometrica 51, 1753-1765.
[4] Bernheim, B.D., B. Peleg, and M.D. Whinston, 1987, “Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria
I: Concepts,” Journal of Economic Theory 42, 1-12.
[5] Bernheim, B.D. and M.D. Whinston, 1986, “Menu Auctions, Resource Allocation, andEconomic Influence,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 101, 1-31.
[6] Bloch, F., 1997, “Non-Cooperative Models of Coalition Formation in Games with
Spillovers,” in C. Carraro and D. Siniscalco eds., New Directions in the Economic Theory of the Environment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 311-352.
[7] Bombardini, M., 2008, “Firm Heterogeneity and Lobby Participation,” Journal of International Economics 75, 329-348.
[8] Chatterjee, K., B. Dutta, D. Ray, and K. Sengupta, 1993, “A Noncooperative Theoryof Coalitional Bargaining,” Review of Economic Studies 60, 463-477.
[9] Conley, J.P., 1994, “Convergence Theorems on the Core of a Public Goods Economy:
Sufficient Conditions,” Journal of Economic Theory 62, 161-185.
[10] Foley, D.K., 1970, “Lindahl’s Solution and the Core of an Economy with Public Goods,”
Econometrica 38, 66-72.
[11] Grossman, G. and E. Helpman, 1994, “Protection for Sale,” American Economic Review
84, 833-850.
[12] Groves T. and J. Ledyard, 1977, “Optimal Allocation of Public Goods: a Solution to
the “Free Rider” Problem,” Econometrica 45, 783-811.
[13] Healy, P.J., 2007, “Equilibrium Participation in Public Goods Allocations,” Working
Paper, Ohio State University.

47

[14] Hurwicz, L., 1979, “Outcome Functions Yielding Walrasian and Lindahl Allocations at
Nash Equilibrium Points,” Review of Economic Studies 46, 217-225.
[15] Jackson, M.O. and T.R. Palfrey, 2001, “Voluntary Implementation,” Journal of Economic Theory 98, 1-25.
[16] Konishi, H., M. Le Breton, and S. Weber, 1999, “On Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria
in Common Agency Games,” Journal of Economic Theory 85, 122-139.
[17] Laussel, D., and M. Le Breton, 2001, “Conflict and Cooperation: the Structure of
Equilibrium Payoffs in Common Agency,” Journal of Economic Theory 100, 93-128.
[18] Le Breton, M., I. Ortuño-Ortin and S. Weber, 2008, “Gamson’s Law and Hedonic
Games,” Social Choice and Welfare 30, 57-67.
[19] Milleron, J.-C., 1972, “Theory of Value with Public Goods: A Survey Article,” Journalof Economic Theory 5, 419-477.
[20] Moldovanu, B. and E. Winter, 1995, “Order Independent Equilibria,” Games and Economic Behavior 9, 1995, 21-35.
[21] Muench, T.J., 1972, “The Core and the Lindahl Equilibrium of an Economy with a
Public Good: an Example,” Journal of Economic Theory 4, 241-255.
[22] Palfrey, R.T. and H. Rosenthal, 1984, “Participation and the Provision of Discrete
Public Goods: a Strategic Analysis,” Journal of Public Economics 24, 171-193.
[23] Paltseva, E., 2006, “Protection for Sale to Oligopolists,” IIES Working Paper, Stockholm University.
[24] Perry, M. and P.J. Reny, 1994, “A Noncooperative View of Coalition Formation and
the Core,” Econometrica 62, 795-817.
[25] Ray, D., 1989, “Credible Coalitions and the Core,” International Journal of Game
Theory 18, 185-187.
48

[26] Ray, D., 2007, A Game-Theoretic Perspective on Coalition Formation (the Lipsey Lecture), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[27] Ray, D. and R. Vohra, 2001, “Coalitional Power and Public Goods,” Journal of Political
Economy 109, 1355-1384.
[28] Saijo, T. and T. Yamato, 1999, “A Voluntary Participation Game with a NonExcludable Public Good,” Journal of Economic Theory 84, 227-242.
[29] Samuelson, P.A., 1954, “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure,” Review of Economics
and Statistics 36, 387-389.
[30] Shapley, L., 1971, “Core of Convex Games,” International Journal of Game Theory 1,
11-26.
[31] Shinohara, R., 2009, “The Possibility of Efficient Provision of a Public Good in Voluntary Participation Games,” Social Choice and Welfare 32, 367-387.
[32] Thoron, S., 1998. “Formation of a Coalition-Proof Stable Cartel,” Canadian Journal of
Economics 31, 63-76.
[33] Walker, M., 1981, “A Simple Incentive Compatible Scheme for Attaining Lindahl Allocations,” Econometrica 49, 65-71.
[34] Yi, S.-S., and H.-S. Shin, 2000, “Endogenous Formation of Research Coalitions with
Spillovers,” International Journal of Industrial Organization 18, 229-256.

49

N
(v)

S*

S'

(iii)
(i)

(ii)
(iv)

T
T : Deviating coalition (i) + (ii) + (iv)S* : Equilibrium lobby
S’ : Off-equilibrium lobby

Figure 1. A Deviation from S *∑j∈N

m j (S r )rv n ' (a) − C ' (a)a* (Sr )aaa * (S r ) − εa * (S r \ {iq })∑j∈N

m j ( S r \ {i })rv n ' (a) − C ' (a)Figure 2. Convergence of a * ( S r \ {i q }) to a * ( S r )PSNE
1. SNE
2. SNE⊆ PCPNE = CoreFRP⊆

SPNE (noncooperative)

SPNE

SPNE

with CPNE

with SNE

1. NE
2. CPNE

=

1. NE

=

2. SSPNE of the

1. NE

noncooperative coalitional

2. SNEbargaining games

Figure 3. Relationships with other equilibrium concepts