Is it better to have the first or the last word in two-round debates like common law trials? If litigants always share available witnesses then they never prefer to present first (to lead), and may prefer to follow; and they never prefer to choose the order after observing the available witnesses than to always follow. Litigants can prefer to lead if they have different available witnesses because the outcomes when some litigant leads coincide with the outcomes in an alternative game where that litigant follows, but commits to its reaction function before observing its available witnesses. Leading is therefore a commitment device.
Download the paper in PDF format
Elena D’Agostino and Daniel J. Seidmann
University of Nottingham Law and Social Sciences Building University Park Nottingham, NG7 2RD
telephone: +44 (0)115 84 68135 email: nicep@nottingham.ac.uk