Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Robustness of intermediate agreements and bargaining solutions

Contents:

Author Info

  • Anbarci, Nejat
  • Sun, Ching-jen

Abstract

Most real-life bargaining is resolved gradually. During this process parties reach intermediate agreements. These intermediate agreements serve as disagreement points in subsequent rounds. We identify robustness criteria which are satisfied by three prominent bargaining solutions, the Nash, Proportional (and as a special case to the Egalitarian solution) and Discrete Raiffa solutions. We show that the “robustness of intermediate agreements” plus additional well-known and plausible axioms, provide novel axiomatizations of the above-mentioned solutions. Hence, we provide a unified framework for comparing these solutionsʼ bargaining theories.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825612001650
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Games and Economic Behavior.

Volume (Year): 77 (2013)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 367-376

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:77:y:2013:i:1:p:367-376

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836

Related research

Keywords: Nashʼs bargaining problem; Robustness; Intermediate agreements; The Discrete Raiffa solution; The Nash solution; Proportional solutions;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Anbarci, N. & Skaperdas, S. & Syropoulos, C., 2000. "Comparing Bargaining Solutions in the Shadow of Conflict: How Norms Against Threats Can Have Real Effects," Papers 00-01-19, California Irvine - School of Social Sciences.
  2. Diskin, A. & Koppel, M. & Samet, D., 2011. "Generalized Raiffa solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 452-458.
  3. Chiang, Jeongwen & Chib, Siddhartha & Narasimhan, Chakravarthi, 1998. "Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 223-248, November.
  4. Rubinstein, Ariel & Salant, Yuval, 2006. "A model of choice from lists," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(1), pages 3-17, March.
  5. Anbarci, Nejat & Bigelow, John P., 1994. "The area monotonic solution to the cooperative bargaining problem," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 133-142, October.
  6. Damme, E.E.C. van, 1986. "The Nash bargaining solution is optimal," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-154426, Tilburg University.
  7. Roth, Alvin E, 1979. "Proportional Solutions to the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 775-77, May.
  8. Tijs, S.H. & Jansen, M.J.M., 1982. "On the existence of values of arbitration games," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-154288, Tilburg University.
  9. Thomson, W., 1989. "Cooperative Models Of Bargaining," RCER Working Papers 177, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  10. Anbarci, Nejat & Boyd III, John H., 2011. "Nash demand game and the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 14-22, January.
  11. Howard, J. V., 1992. "A social choice rule and its implementation in perfect equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 142-159, February.
  12. Moulin, H., 1984. "Implementing the Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 32-45, June.
  13. Nejat Anbarci, 1995. "Reference Functions and Balanced Concessions in Bargaining," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 675-82, August.
  14. Gul, Faruk, 1989. "Bargaining Foundations of Shapley Value," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(1), pages 81-95, January.
  15. Geoffroy Clippel, 2007. "An axiomatization of the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 201-210, September.
  16. Anbarci, Nejat & Yi, Gyoseob, 1992. "A meta-allocation mechanism in cooperative bargaining," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 175-179, February.
  17. Gur Huberman, 2001. "Contagious Speculation and a Cure for Cancer: A Nonevent that Made Stock Prices Soar," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(1), pages 387-396, 02.
  18. Sobel, Joel, 1981. "Distortion of Utilities and the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 597-619, May.
  19. Bigelow, John Payne & Anbarci, Nejat, 1993. "Non-dictatorial, Pareto-monotonic, cooperative bargaining : An impossibility theorem," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 551-558, November.
  20. Chun, Youngsub & Thomson, William, 1990. "Bargaining with Uncertain Disagreement Points," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 951-59, July.
  21. Walter Trockel, 2009. "An axiomatization of the Sequential Raiffa solution," Working Papers 425, Bielefeld University, Center for Mathematical Economics.
  22. Alvin E Roth, 2008. "Axiomatic Models of Bargaining," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000002376, David K. Levine.
  23. Damme, Eric van, 1986. "The Nash bargaining solution is optimal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 78-100, February.
  24. Ehud Kalai, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Discussion Papers 179, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  25. Thomson, William, 1987. "Monotonicity of bargaining solutions with respect to the disagreement point," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 50-58, June.
  26. Michelle Sovinsky Goeree, 2008. "Limited Information and Advertising in the U.S. Personal Computer Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(5), pages 1017-1074, 09.
  27. Chun, Youngsub, 1988. "The equal-loss principle for bargaining problems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 103-106.
  28. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
  29. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-18, May.
  30. Anbarci, Nejat, 1993. "Noncooperative Foundations of the Area Monotonic Solutions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 108(1), pages 245-58, February.
  31. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
  32. Damme, E.E.C. van & Peters, H., 1991. "Characterizing the Nash and Raiffa bargaining solutions by disagreement point axioms," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-154419, Tilburg University.
  33. Eric van Damme, 1984. "The Nash Bargaining Solution is Optimal," Discussion Papers 597, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  34. Edgeworth, Francis Ysidro, 1881. "Mathematical Psychics," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number edgeworth1881.
  35. Chun, Youngsub, 1988. "Nash solution and timing of bargaining," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 27-31.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Haruo Imai & Hannu Salonen, 2012. "A characterization of a limit solution for finite horizon bargaining problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 603-622, August.
  2. Trockel, Walter, 2011. "An exact non-cooperative support for the sequential Raiffa solution," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 77-83, January.
  3. Samet, Dov, 2009. "What if Achilles and the tortoise were to bargain? An argument against interim agreements," MPRA Paper 23370, University Library of Munich, Germany.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:77:y:2013:i:1:p:367-376. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.