IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcomop/v25y2013i1d10.1007_s10878-011-9424-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new two-party bargaining mechanism

Author

Listed:
  • Y. H. Gu

    (Shenzhen University)

  • M. Goh

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Q. L. Chen

    (National University of Singapore)

  • R. D. Souza

    (National University of Singapore)

  • G. C. Tang

    (Shanghai Second Polytechnic University)

Abstract

If resources and facilities from different partners need to be engaged for a large-scale project with a huge number of tasks, any of which is indivisible, decision on the number of tasks assigned to any collaborating partner often requires a certain amount of coordination and bargaining among these partners so that the ultimate task allocation can be accepted by any partner in a business union for the project. In the current global financial crisis, such cases may appear frequently. In this paper, we first investigate the behavior of such a discrete bargaining model often faced by service-based organizations. In particular, we address the general situation of two partners, where the finite Pareto efficient (profit allocation) set does not possess any convenient assumption for deriving a bargaining solution, namely a final profit allocation (corresponding to a task assignment) acceptable to both partners. We show that it is not appropriate for our discrete bargaining model to offer the union only one profit allocation. Modifying the original optimization problem used to derive the Nash Bargaining Solution (NBS), we develop a bargaining mechanism and define a related bargaining solution set to fulfil one type of needs on balance between profit-earning efficiency and profit-earning fairness. We then show that our mechanism can also suit both Nash’s original concave bargaining model and its continuous extension without the concavity of Pareto efficient frontier on profit allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Y. H. Gu & M. Goh & Q. L. Chen & R. D. Souza & G. C. Tang, 2013. "A new two-party bargaining mechanism," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 135-163, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcomop:v:25:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s10878-011-9424-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10878-011-9424-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10878-011-9424-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10878-011-9424-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haresh Gurnani & Mengze Shi, 2006. "A Bargaining Model for a First-Time Interaction Under Asymmetric Beliefs of Supply Reliability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(6), pages 865-880, June.
    2. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    3. Conley, John P. & Wilkie, Simon, 1991. "The bargaining problem without convexity : Extending the egalitarian and Kalai-Smorodinsky solutions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 365-369, August.
    4. ,, 2004. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 427-429, April.
    5. Walter Trockel, 2005. "Core-equivalence for the Nash bargaining solution," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(1), pages 255-263, January.
    6. Eyal Winter & Oscar Volij & Nir Dagan, 2002. "A characterization of the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(4), pages 811-823.
    7. Lingxiu Dong & Hong Liu, 2007. "Equilibrium Forward Contracts on Nonstorable Commodities in the Presence of Market Power," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 128-145, February.
    8. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475.
    9. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    10. ,, 2004. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 223-229, February.
    11. Anant, T. C. A. & Mukherji, Badal & Basu, Kaushik, 1990. "Bargaining without convexity : Generalizing the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 115-119, June.
    12. Herrero, Maria Jose, 1989. "The nash program: Non-convex bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 266-277, December.
    13. Marco Mariotti, 1998. "Nash bargaining theory when the number of alternatives can be finite," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(3), pages 413-421.
    14. Makoto Tanaka & Ryo-ichi Nagahisa, 2002. "An axiomatization of the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution when the feasible sets can be finite," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(4), pages 751-761.
    15. Lahiri, S., 2003. "Axiomatic characterization of the Nash and Kalai-Smorodinsky solutions for discrete bargaining problems," Pure Mathematics and Applications, Department of Mathematics, Corvinus University of Budapest, vol. 14(3), pages 207-220.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Roberto Serrano, 2020. "Sixty-Seven Years of the Nash Program: Time for Retirement?," Working Papers 2020-20, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    2. Ling Gai & Jiandong Ji, 2019. "An integrated method to solve the healthcare facility layout problem under area constraints," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 95-113, January.
    3. Roberto Serrano, 2021. "Sixty-seven years of the Nash program: time for retirement?," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 35-48, March.
    4. Wei Gao & Wuping Bao & Xin Zhou, 2019. "Analysis of cough detection index based on decision tree and support vector machine," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 375-384, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yongsheng Xu & Naoki Yoshihara, 2020. "Nonconvex Bargaining Problems: Some Recent Developments," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 7-41, November.
    2. Yanhong Gu & Jing Fan & Guochun Tang & Jiaofei Zhong, 2013. "Maximum latency scheduling problem on two-person cooperative games," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 71-81, July.
    3. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    4. Yongsheng Xu & Naoki Yoshihara, 2019. "An equitable Nash solution to nonconvex bargaining problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(3), pages 769-779, September.
    5. John Conley & Simon Wilkie, 1994. "Implementing the nash extension bargaining solution for non-convex problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 1(1), pages 205-216, December.
    6. Cheng-Zhong Qin & Shuzhong Shi & Guofu Tan, 2015. "Nash bargaining for log-convex problems," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 58(3), pages 413-440, April.
    7. Xu, Yongsheng & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2011. "Proportional Nash solutions - A new and procedural analysis of nonconvex bargaining problems," Discussion Paper Series 552, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    8. Roberto Serrano, 2004. "Fifty Years of the Nash Program, 1953-2003," Working Papers 2004-20, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    9. Roberto Serrano, 2005. "Fifty years of the Nash program, 1953-2003," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(2), pages 219-258, May.
    10. Zambrano, Eduardo, 2016. "‘Vintage’ Nash bargaining without convexity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 32-34.
    11. Hanato, Shunsuke, 2019. "Simultaneous-offers bargaining with a mediator," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 361-379.
    12. Goker Aydin & H. Sebastian Heese, 2015. "Bargaining for an Assortment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 542-559, March.
    13. Adriana Breccia, 2006. "Sequential Bargaining in a Stochastic Environment," Discussion Papers 06/07, Department of Economics, University of York.
    14. Hagiwara, Makoto, 2019. "Double implementation without no-veto-power," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 124-130.
    15. Alfredo Valencia-Toledo & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2020. "A sequential bargaining protocol for land rental arrangements," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 24(1), pages 65-99, June.
    16. Brangewitz, Sonja & Gamp, Jan-Philip, 2016. "Inner Core, Asymmetric Nash Bargaining Solutions and Competitive Payoffs," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 453, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    17. Zhong, Feimin & Zhou, Zhongbao & Leng, Mingming, 2021. "Negotiation-sequence, pricing, and ordering decisions in a three-echelon supply chain: A coopetitive-game analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(3), pages 1096-1107.
    18. Paolo Balduzzi, 2004. "Delegation Games with Full Commitment," Working Papers 70, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Apr 2004.
    19. Houba, Harold, 2007. "Alternating offers in economic environments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 316-324, September.
    20. Bram Driesen & Peter Eccles & Nora Wegner, 2017. "A non-cooperative foundation for the continuous Raiffa solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(4), pages 1115-1135, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jcomop:v:25:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s10878-011-9424-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.