Home - Andy Zapechelnyuk's Home Page

Andy

Working Papers
Publications
Grants
Teaching

Andriy (Andy) Zapechelnyuk

School of Economics

University of Edinburgh

31 Buccleuch Place

Edinburgh EH8 9JT

United Kingdom

Location: 31 Buccleuch Place, Room 4.01

Email: Andy.Zapechelnyuk (ατ) ed.ac.uk

Phone: Microsoft Teams

I am a Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh. I got a PhD from Stony Brook University in 2005. Before landing at Edinburgh in 2022, I spent some time as a researcher at the Center for the Study of Rationality (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics (University of Bonn), and I have taught at Kyiv School of Economics, Queen Mary University of London, University of Glasgow, and University of St Andrews.

My research interests lie in the field of microeconomic theory and applications, focusing on communication and information design, optimal contracts, and robust decision theory.

Curriculum Vitae

Google Scholar profile

Working Papers

‣ Fair sequential search (with Karl Schlag)

We model fairness within the context of search. To do this, consider sequential search where the searcher is uncertain about the underlying pool of candidates. Fairness is introduced by requiring that candidates cannot be discriminated against by non-merit characteristics or by the order in which they are interviewed. We find that search is fair if and only if it follows a cutoff strategy that prescribes to accept the first candidate above the bar. Importantly, the concern for fairness comes at a relatively small cost. The optimal unrestricted search has less than twice the value of the optimal fair search.

‣ Constructive vs toxic argumentation in debates (with Tymofiy Mylovanov)

[merges two earlier working papers, A model of debates: Moderation vs free speech and Sequential obfuscation and toxic argumentation]

Two debaters address an audience by sequentially choosing their information strategies. We compare the setting where the second mover reveals additional information (constructive argumentation) with the setting where the second mover obfuscates the first mover's information (toxic argumentation). We reframe both settings as constrained optimization problems of the first mover. We show that when the preferences are zero-sum or risk neutral, constructive debates reveal the state, while toxic debates are completely uninformative. Moreover, constructive debates reveal the state under the assumption on preferences that capture autocratic regimes, whereas toxic debates are completely uninformative under the assumption on preferences that capture democratic regimes.

‣ Compromise, don't optimize: Generalizing perfect Bayesian equilibrium to allow for ambiguity (with Karl Schlag)

[previously titled "Compromise, don't optimize: A prior-free alternative to perfect Bayesian equilibrium"]

We introduce a solution concept for extensive-form games of incomplete information in which players are allowed to entertain multiple beliefs about what they do not know in the game. Players make dynamically consistent choices by looking for compromises that yield a good performance under each of their beliefs, anticipating their future choices. Our solution concept is called perfect compromise equilibrium. It generalizes perfect Bayesian equilibrium. We show how it deals with ambiguity in Cournot and Bertrand markets, public good provision, Spence's job market signaling, bilateral trade with common value, and forecasting.

‣ Persuasion under insufficient reason (with Anton Kolotilin) [Slides]

A sender designs how to disclose information about the state of the world to persuade a receiver to accept a proposal. The sender is ignorant about both the receiver's type and his risk attitude. The sender applies the principle of maximum entropy to resolve her ignorance. We show that the maximum-entropy utility is risk neutral if nothing is known about the agent's utility, and it is CARA if the average utility is known. Furthermore, the optimal signal is either fully revealing or completely uninformative if nothing is known about the distribution of the agent's type, or if its mean is known; the optimal signal is a censorship if the mean and variance are known. To derive our results, we propose a novel representation of preference over lotteries.

‣ Bargaining under incomplete information with the help of delay (with Karl Schlag)

We study bargaining under incomplete information, with applications to trade and to provision of public good. In our setting, agents not only agree on how they share their output, but also on how much output they produce. We are interested in bargaining rules that do not depend on priors. We find a unique rule that satisfies a set of axioms. Under this rule, the higher the surplus, the more output is produced. Moreover, the produced output is shared as in the Nash bargaining solution. We present a dynamic protocol that implements this rule for any priors. Heterogeneous discount factors and degrees of risk aversion can be included.

‣ Are there "Ratatouille" restaurants? On anticorrelation of food quality and hygiene (with Hisayuki Yoshimoto)

We study the empirical relationship between hygiene conditions in restaurants and their food quality rated by both professional reviewers and consumers. Using evidence from the UK, we show that this relationship is negative and statistically significant. So, a higher food quality rating is generally associated with a less sanitary kitchen. We find that 3% of Michelin starred restaurants in our dataset have poor hygiene conditions, while the same is true for only 2% of non-Michelin starred restaurants. Our findings illuminate potential channels through which the anticorrelation between food quality and hygiene effort could be mitigated, and can be helpful for hygiene inspectors to prioritize restaurants in their inspection schedule.