This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The Game of Negotiations: Ordering Issues and Implementing Agreements

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Lutz-Alexander Busch (University of Waterloo)
Ignatius Horstmann (University of Western Ontario)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

We study a two-issue bargaining situation in which the surplus of one issue is public information, while that of the other issue is private information to one of the parties. Bargaining is by alternating offers under common time-discounting. The bargaining agenda is determined endogenously since players are free to offer on any number of outstanding issues. Offers must, however, be accepted or rejected in their entirety. Once an offer has been accepted it is not renegotiable. We study this game under two alternative rules for implementing agreements. In the first, partial agreements are implemented as they are reached, in the alternative setting implementation is joint, so that even if an offer on one issue is accepted consumption of this surplus is nevertheless delayed until the second issue is also settled. We show that the order in which issues are bargained in equilibrium is determined by three things: the implementation rule, the type of the informed player and the initial beliefs of the uninformed player. Specifically, an issue-by-issue bargaining agenda arises only when a low-valuation informed player faces an opponent who believes him to be likely a high-valuation type. In contrast to suggestions in the negotiation practitioner literature, such initial agenda offers always involve concessions (much smaller allocations to the informed player than in a bargain without agenda offers.) We also show that it is the implementation rule which determines which issue leads in the agenda. When implementation takes place as agreements are reached, then the issue of known size is negotiated first. If agreements are implemented only after all issues are settled, then, if order is relevant at all, large issues are settled first. All parties prefer the former rules of implementation to the latter.

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.

File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/1109.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function: main text
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Econometric Society in its series Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers with number 1109.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 01 Aug 2000
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ecm:wc2000:1109

Contact details of provider:
Phone: 1 212 998 3820
Fax: 1 212 995 4487
Email:
Web page: http://www.econometricsociety.org/pastmeetings.asp
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

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.:
  1. Inderst, Roman, 2000. "Multi-issue Bargaining with Endogenous Agenda," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 64-82, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Busch, Lutz-Alexander & Wen, Quan, 1995. "Perfect Equilibria in Negotiation Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(3), pages 545-65, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. Clara Ponsati & Joel Watson, 1994. "Multiple-Issue Bargaining and Axiomatic Solutions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series 94-14, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    Other versions:
  4. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Admati, Anat R & Perry, Motty, 1987. "Strategic Delay in Bargaining," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 54(3), pages 345-64, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Jun, Byoung Heon, 1989. "Non-cooperative Bargaining and Union Formation," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 56(1), pages 59-76, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1985. "A Bargaining Model with Incomplete Information about Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1151-72, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Lutz-Alexander Bush & Shouyong Shi & Quan Wen, 1998. "Bargaining with Surplus Destruction," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 31(4), pages 915-932, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Sanford J. Grossman & Motty Perry, 1986. "Sequential Bargaining Under Asymmetric Information," NBER Technical Working Papers 0056, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  10. Perry, Motty, 1986. "An Example of Price Formation in Bilateral Situations: A Bargaining Model with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(2), pages 313-21, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Busch, Lutz-Alexander & Horstmann, Ignatius, 1997. "A Comment on Issue-by-Issue Negotiations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 144-148, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Cho, In-Koo & Kreps, David M, 1987. "Signaling Games and Stable Equilibria," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 102(2), pages 179-221, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Haller, Hans & Holden, Steinar, 1990. "A letter to the editor on wage bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 232-236, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Lutz-Alexander Busch & Ignatius Horstmann, 1999. "Endogenous Incomplete Contracts: A Bargaining Approach," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(4), pages 956-975, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Fershtman, Chaim, 1990. "The importance of the agenda in bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 224-238, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-30, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  17. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Infinite-Horizon Models of Bargaining with One-Sided Incomplete Information," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1098, UCLA Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  18. Avery Christopher & Zemsky Peter B., 1994. "Money Burning and Multiple Equilibria in Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 154-168, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Inderst, Roman, 1998. "Multi-Issue Bargaining with Endogenous Agenda," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 98-35, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim & Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
  20. Fernandez, Raquel & Glazer, Jacob, 1991. "Striking for a Bargain between Two Completely Informed Agents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 240-52, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
Full references

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.)

  1. L.-A. Busch & A. Muthoo, 2003. "Power and Inefficient Institutions," Economics Discussion Papers 561, University of Essex, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Each page is provided with a technical contact, in case something is not right with the supplied information. See under "publisher info".

This page was last updated on 2008-7-16.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.