We investigate how rational individuals partition themselves into different coalitions in "hedonic games" [see Banerjee, Konishi and S”nmez (1998) and Bogomolnaia and Jackson (2000)], where individuals' preferences depend solely on the composition of the coalition they belong to. We show that the four solution concepts studied in the literature (core, Nash stability, individual stability and contractual individual stability) exhibit myopia on the part of the players. We amend these notions by endowing players with foresight in that they look many steps ahead and consider only credible outcomes. We show the existence and study the properties of the new solutions, as well as their relation to the previous notions.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by School of Economics and Management, University of Aarhus in its series Economics Working Papers with number
2000-12.
Find related papers by JEL classification: C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
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.:
Cited by: (explanations, 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.)