Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation 6/2018

25.10.2018

The Generalized Nash Bargaining Solution for Transfer Price Negotiations Under Incomplete Information

verfasst von: Claus-Jochen Haake, Sonja Recker

Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation | Ausgabe 6/2018

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In our model two divisions negotiate over type-dependent contracts to determine an intrafirm transfer price for an intermediate product. Since the upstream division’s (seller’s) costs and downstream division’s (buyer’s) revenues are supposed to be private information, we formally consider cooperative bargaining problems under incomplete information. This means that the two divisions consider allocations of expected utility generated by mechanisms that satisfy (interim) individual rationality, incentive compatibility and/or ex post efficiency. Assuming two possible types for buyer and seller each, we first establish that the bargaining problem is regular, regardless whether or not incentive and/or efficiency constraints are imposed. This allows us to apply the generalized Nash bargaining solution to determine fair transfer payments and transfer quantities. In particular, the generalized Nash bargaining solution tries to balance divisional profits, while incentive constraints are still in place. In that sense a fair profit division is generated. Furthermore, by means of illustrative examples we derive general properties of this solution for the transfer pricing problem and compare the model developed here with the models existing in the literature. We demonstrate that there is a tradeoff between ex post efficiency and fairness.

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!

Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
The performance of the division might be used as an indicator to evaluate the abilities and effort of the division managers. Thus, each division manager is supposed to maximize his divisional profit.
 
2
For simplicity, we denote a type profile \((t_1,t_2)\) by \(t_1 t_2\).
 
3
We use the terms type-dependent contract and mechanism interchangeably.
 
4
Alternatively, \(Q_t\) can be interpreted as the fraction of a maximally tradeable quantity \({\bar{Q}}\). In that case, \(R_H\) is the revenue from selling \({\bar{Q}}\) on the external market. Similarly, \(Q_t\) can be interpreted as a transfer probability with which the unit of the product is traded. Our assumptions of linear pricing and marginal costs then translate to having risk-neutral divisions.
 
5
The elements described constitute a Bayesian bargaining problem
$$\begin{aligned} \varGamma =(D,(0,0),T_1,T_2,u_1,u_2,P) \end{aligned}$$
with \(D\subseteq {\mathbb {R}}^2\), a convex polyhedron in the sense of Myerson (1979). We refer to it here as the transfer pricing game.
 
6
Compare Holmström and Myerson (1983) for further notions of efficiency for mechanisms.
 
7
Note that depending on the values of \(R_H,R_L,C_H,C_L\) some \({{\mathcal {M}}}^i\) might be empty.
 
8
To be precise, this is what each one does, provided that the other division reports truthfully.
 
9
That means there is no mechanism \({\hat{\mu }}^{(Y,Q)}\) such that each agent’s conditional expected utility is no worse than in \(\mu ^{(Y,Q)}\) and some agent is strictly better off.
 
10
We thank an anonymous referee for adding this point.
 
11
Of course, this only makes sense if there are mechanisms that satisfy IR, IC, and EPE, which can be verified using Proposition 1 (or 2).
 
12
Recall that the Nash solution results from maximization of the Nash product.
 
13
(Wagenhofer 1994, Proposition 6) shows that the “equal-split sealed-bid” mechanism implements the first best solution if \((1-\varepsilon )(R_H-R_L) \le \varepsilon (R_H-C_H)\) and \(\delta (C_H-C_L) \le (1-\delta )(R_L-C_L)\) hold.
 
14
Interestingly, the mechanism in Case 1 is a convex combination of three other mechanisms mentioned in Appendix B, Remark 3. A similar observation holds for the mechanism from Case 2.1, see Appendix B, Remark 4.
 
15
Recall that maximizing F or its logarithm results in the same set of maximizing mechanisms.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat de Clippel G (2012) Egalitarianism in mechanism design. unpublished de Clippel G (2012) Egalitarianism in mechanism design. unpublished
Metadaten
Titel
The Generalized Nash Bargaining Solution for Transfer Price Negotiations Under Incomplete Information
verfasst von
Claus-Jochen Haake
Sonja Recker
Publikationsdatum
25.10.2018
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Group Decision and Negotiation / Ausgabe 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0926-2644
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9907
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9592-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2018

Group Decision and Negotiation 6/2018 Zur Ausgabe