The Kalai-Smorodinsky Solution in Labor-Market Negotiations
AbstractAuthors who consider efficient bargaining on the labor market predominantly focus on the Nash-bargaining solution. It seems, however, that actual labor market negotiations between an employers’ federation and a labor union are often characterized by mutual concessions, which may be accounted for by an application of the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution to labor-market negotiations. Correspondingly, we investigate how a government can influence the equilibrium on the labor market by changing the reservation wage when the equilibrium is determined by the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution. We find that the induced employment effects may differ substantially when compared with the Nash bargaining solution. Hence, substituting the Kalai-Smorodinsky by the Nash bargaining solution is not innocuous, when actual negotiations are characterized by mutual incremental concessions.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by CESifo Group Munich in its series CESifo Working Paper Series with number 941.
Date of creation: 2003
Date of revision:
labor market negotiations; Kalai-Smorodinsky solution; Nash-bargaining solution; reservation wage; fiscal and social policies;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2004-05-02 (All new papers)
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.:
- Fuest, Clemens & Huber, Bernd, 2000. "Why do governments subsidise investment and not employment?," Munich Reprints in Economics 20295, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Kalai, Ehud, 1977.
"Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons,"
Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-30, October.
- 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.
- McDonald, Ian M & Solow, Robert M, 1981. "Wage Bargaining and Employment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 896-908, December.
- Garino, Gaia & Martin, Christopher, 2000.
"Efficiency wages and union-firm bargaining,"
Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 181-185, November.
- Strand, Jon, 2002. "Wage bargaining and turnover costs with heterogenous labor and perfect history screening," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1209-1227, July.
- Fuest, Clemens & Huber, Bernd, 2000. "Why do governments subsidise investment and not employment?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1-2), pages 171-192, October.
- Petrakis, Emmanuel & Vlassis, Minas, 2000. "Endogenous scope of bargaining in a union-oligopoly model: when will firms and unions bargain over employment?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 261-281, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Julio Saavedra).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.