Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Social Choice and Welfare 2/2018

12.03.2018 | Original Paper

The bargaining correspondence: when Edgeworth meets Nash

verfasst von: Ching-jen Sun

Erschienen in: Social Choice and Welfare | Ausgabe 2/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

A new, more fundamental approach is proposed to the classical bargaining problem. The give-and-take feature in the negotiation process is explicitly modelled under the new framework. A compromise set consists of all allocations a player is willing to accept as agreement. We focus on the relationship between the rationality principles (arguments) adopted by players in making mutual concessions and the formation of compromise sets. The bargaining correspondence is then defined as the intersection of players’ compromise sets. We study the non-emptiness, symmetry, efficiency and single-valuedness of the bargaining correspondence, and establish its connection to the Nash solution. Our framework provides a rational foundation to Nash’s axiomatic approach.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
See Thomson (1994) for a comprehensive survey of the literature. For recent developments in the literature, see Thomson (2009).
 
2
Myerson (1999) stated that Nash’s bargaining solution was “virtually unanticipated in the literature,” and Binmore (2005) argued that “Nash deserves his Nobel prize more for his bargaining solution than for his equilibrium concept, since his contribution to bargaining theory is entirely original, whereas his equilibrium idea had a number of precursors.”
 
3
While it was not explicitly declared when Nash (1950) first proposed his axiomatic approach, the unique existence of the solution (agreement) was formally stated as the first fundamental axiom (assumption) in Nash (1953, p. 136). This assumption is vital in Nash’s framework. Without this assumption, Nash’s axioms, which are properties defined on the assumed solution, would be meaningless, and Nash’s approach would be logically unsound. Binmore (1984) also pointed out that the existence of agreement is implicitly assumed in Nash (1950).
One way to avoid addressing the existence of agreement issue in Nash’s framework is to interpret a bargaining solution as a compromise recommended by an arbitrator rather than a unanimous agreement reached by the parties.
 
4
The strategic approach specifies the negotiation process in a multi-stage game, and predicts bargaining outcomes based on a suitable equilibrium concept. In the seminal paper, Rubinstein (1982) proved the existence of subgame perfect Nash equilibrium in a two-person, alternating-offer bargaining game. The existence of stationary no-delay equilibrium in general n-person bargaining games has been established in Banks and Duggan (2000) and Britz et al. (2010, 2014). Recently, Duggan (2017) provided sufficient conditions for the existence of stationary Markov perfect equilibrium in a general class of dynamic bargaining games.
 
5
The idea of compromise (acceptance) sets in bargaining, while in a different context, dates back to Banks and Duggan (2000), and has been used by Kalandrakis (2004), Britz et al. (2010, 2014), and others.
 
6
Given \(x,y\in \mathbb {R} ^{n},\) \(x>y\) if \(x_{i}>y_{i}\) for each i,  and \(x\ge y\) if \(x_{i}\ge y_{i} \) for each i.
 
7
Note that CR itself is a kind of symmetry assumption on the players’ behavior (but obviously much weaker than SYM). Hence we do not completely accomplish Schelling’s goal of abandoning ANY symmetry assumption in game theory. Our view is that this direction is unrealistic.
 
8
Compared to the Zeuthen-Harsanyi concession principle, \(\hbox {CIP}_{H}\) is a much weaker condition on mutual concessions, and is compatible with most solution concepts.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Banks J, Duggan J (2000) A bargaining model of collective choice. Am Polit Sci Rev 94:73–88CrossRef Banks J, Duggan J (2000) A bargaining model of collective choice. Am Polit Sci Rev 94:73–88CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Binmore KG (1984) Bargaining conventions. Int J Game Theory 13:193–200CrossRef Binmore KG (1984) Bargaining conventions. Int J Game Theory 13:193–200CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Britz V, Herings P, Predtetchinski A (2010) Non-cooperative support for the asymmetric Nash bargaining solution. J Econ Theory 145:1951–1967CrossRef Britz V, Herings P, Predtetchinski A (2010) Non-cooperative support for the asymmetric Nash bargaining solution. J Econ Theory 145:1951–1967CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Britz V, Herings P, Predtetchinski A (2014) On the convergence to the Nash bargaining solution for action-dependent bargaining protocols. Games Econ Behav 86:178–183CrossRef Britz V, Herings P, Predtetchinski A (2014) On the convergence to the Nash bargaining solution for action-dependent bargaining protocols. Games Econ Behav 86:178–183CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Chun Y, Thomson W (1990) Bargaining problems with uncertain disagreement points. Econometrica 58:951–959CrossRef Chun Y, Thomson W (1990) Bargaining problems with uncertain disagreement points. Econometrica 58:951–959CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Crawford VP (1982) A theory of disagreement in bargaining. Econometrica 50:607–637CrossRef Crawford VP (1982) A theory of disagreement in bargaining. Econometrica 50:607–637CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Duggan J (2017) Existence of stationary bargaining equilibria. Games Econ Behav 102:111–126CrossRef Duggan J (2017) Existence of stationary bargaining equilibria. Games Econ Behav 102:111–126CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Edgeworth FY (1881) Mathematical psychics: an essay on the application of mathematics to the moral sciences. C. Kegan Paul & Co., London Edgeworth FY (1881) Mathematical psychics: an essay on the application of mathematics to the moral sciences. C. Kegan Paul & Co., London
Zurück zum Zitat Harsanyi J (1956) Approaches to the bargaining problem before and after the theory of games: a critical discussion of Zeuthen’s, Hicks’, and Nash’s theories. Econometrica 24:144–157CrossRef Harsanyi J (1956) Approaches to the bargaining problem before and after the theory of games: a critical discussion of Zeuthen’s, Hicks’, and Nash’s theories. Econometrica 24:144–157CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Harsanyi J (1961) On the rationality postulates underlying the theory of cooperative games. J Conflict Resolut 5:179–196CrossRef Harsanyi J (1961) On the rationality postulates underlying the theory of cooperative games. J Conflict Resolut 5:179–196CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kalandrakis T (2004) Equilibria in sequential bargaining games as solutions to systems of equations. Econ Lett 84:407–411CrossRef Kalandrakis T (2004) Equilibria in sequential bargaining games as solutions to systems of equations. Econ Lett 84:407–411CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Laruelle A, Valenciano F (2007) Bargaining in committees as an extension of Nash’s bargaining theory. J Econ Theory 132:291–305CrossRef Laruelle A, Valenciano F (2007) Bargaining in committees as an extension of Nash’s bargaining theory. J Econ Theory 132:291–305CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lensberg T, Thomson W (1989) Axiomatic theory of bargaining with a variable number of agents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Lensberg T, Thomson W (1989) Axiomatic theory of bargaining with a variable number of agents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Zurück zum Zitat Moulin H (1983) Le Choix Social Utilitariste. Ecole Polytechnique Discussion Paper Moulin H (1983) Le Choix Social Utilitariste. Ecole Polytechnique Discussion Paper
Zurück zum Zitat Myerson RB (1997) Game-theoretic models of bargaining: an introduction for economists studying the transnational commons. In: Dasgupta P, Maler K-G, Vercelli A (eds) The economics of transnational commons. Oxford Unoversity Press, Oxford, pp 17–34CrossRef Myerson RB (1997) Game-theoretic models of bargaining: an introduction for economists studying the transnational commons. In: Dasgupta P, Maler K-G, Vercelli A (eds) The economics of transnational commons. Oxford Unoversity Press, Oxford, pp 17–34CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Myerson RB (1999) Nash equilibrium and the history of economic theory. J Econ Lit 37:1067–1082CrossRef Myerson RB (1999) Nash equilibrium and the history of economic theory. J Econ Lit 37:1067–1082CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Nash JF (1953) Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica 21:128–140CrossRef Nash JF (1953) Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica 21:128–140CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Roth AE, Murnighan JK (1982) The role of information in bargaining: an experimental study. Econometrica 50:1123–1142CrossRef Roth AE, Murnighan JK (1982) The role of information in bargaining: an experimental study. Econometrica 50:1123–1142CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rubinstein A (1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50:97–109CrossRef Rubinstein A (1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50:97–109CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rubinstein A, Safra Z, Thomson W (1992) On the Interpretation of the Nash bargaining solution and its extension to non-expected utility preferences. Econometrica 60:1171–1186CrossRef Rubinstein A, Safra Z, Thomson W (1992) On the Interpretation of the Nash bargaining solution and its extension to non-expected utility preferences. Econometrica 60:1171–1186CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Schelling TC (1959) For the abandonment of symmetry in game theory. Rev Econ Stat 41:213–224CrossRef Schelling TC (1959) For the abandonment of symmetry in game theory. Rev Econ Stat 41:213–224CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Shapley LS (1969) Utility comparison and the theory of games. In: La Decision. CNRS, Paris, pp 251–263 Shapley LS (1969) Utility comparison and the theory of games. In: La Decision. CNRS, Paris, pp 251–263
Zurück zum Zitat Stein P (1966) A note on the volume of a simplex. Am Math Mon 73:299–301CrossRef Stein P (1966) A note on the volume of a simplex. Am Math Mon 73:299–301CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Thomson W (1994) Cooperative models of bargaining. In: Aumann RJ, Hart S (eds) Handbook of game theory, vol 2. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1237–1284 Thomson W (1994) Cooperative models of bargaining. In: Aumann RJ, Hart S (eds) Handbook of game theory, vol 2. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1237–1284
Zurück zum Zitat Thomson W (2009) Bargaining and the theory of cooperative games: John Nash and beyond. RCER Working Paper No. 554, University of Rochester Thomson W (2009) Bargaining and the theory of cooperative games: John Nash and beyond. RCER Working Paper No. 554, University of Rochester
Zurück zum Zitat von Neumann John, Morgenstern Oskar (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton von Neumann John, Morgenstern Oskar (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Zurück zum Zitat Zeuthen F (1930) Problems of monopoly and economic warfare. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London Zeuthen F (1930) Problems of monopoly and economic warfare. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
Metadaten
Titel
The bargaining correspondence: when Edgeworth meets Nash
verfasst von
Ching-jen Sun
Publikationsdatum
12.03.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Social Choice and Welfare / Ausgabe 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0176-1714
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-217X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-018-1119-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2018

Social Choice and Welfare 2/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Revealed votes