IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/iasawp/ir97050.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Rational Agents, Contract Curves, and Inefficient Compromises Report

Author

Listed:
  • G.E. Kersten
  • S.J. Noronha

Abstract

Several studies of two-party negotiations have shown that negotiators more often than not reach inefficient compromises. We analyze the circumstances under which rational agents make inefficient compromises and refrain from improving them. We do this by describing and interpreting various negotiation situations and by developing formal constructs and theorems for determining the character of a negotiation situation. Key among these concepts is the notion of opposition. Although opposition is defined in terms of the utility functions, it is more fundamental in the sense that it is more intuitive to decision makers and can be used in contexts in which the parties' utilities are unknown or are partially known. The effects of various rationality assumptions on efficiency and their implications for negotiation support systems are discussed. We argue that the prescriptive/descriptive approach advocated by negotiation analysts lacks sufficient explanatory powers to be effectively used in negotiation support and that negotiation support systems should not constrain the parties to the set of efficient points.

Suggested Citation

  • G.E. Kersten & S.J. Noronha, 1997. "Rational Agents, Contract Curves, and Inefficient Compromises Report," Working Papers ir97050, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    • Handle: RePEc:wop:iasawp:ir97050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-97-050.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-97-050.ps
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McClennen,Edward F., 1990. "Rationality and Dynamic Choice," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521360470.
    2. James K. Sebenius, 1992. "Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 18-38, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Marie-Edith Bissey & John Hey & Stefania Ottone, 2010. "Jekyll and Hyde," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 555-559.
    2. Christian Koboldt, 1996. "Consistent planning, backwards induction, and rule-governed behavior," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-48, March.
    3. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak, 2000. "Preference for Information and Dynamic Consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 263-286, May.
    4. Mongin, P., 1998. "Does Optimization Imply Rationality?," Papers 9817, Paris X - Nanterre, U.F.R. de Sc. Ec. Gest. Maths Infor..
    5. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2002. "Adequate Moods for non-EU Decision Making in a Sequential Framework," Post-Print halshs-00004830, HAL.
    6. Eran Hanany & Peter Klibanoff, 2008. "Updating Ambiguity Averse Preferences," Discussion Papers 1468, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    7. Volinskiy, Dmitriy & Bergstrom, John C. & Cornwell, Christopher M. & Holmes, Thomas P., 2010. "A Pseudo-Sequential Choice Model for Valuing Multi-Attribute Environmental Policies or Programs in Contingent Valuation Applications," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 9-21, February.
    8. Michèle Cohen & Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva, 2008. "Dynamic Decision Making when Risk Perception Depends on Past Experience," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 173-192, March.
    9. Jos Timmermans, 2008. "Punctuated equilibrium in a non-linear system of action," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 350-375, December.
    10. Caputo, Andrea, 2016. "Overcoming judgmental biases in negotiations: A scenario-based survey analysis on third party direct intervention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4304-4312.
    11. Francesco Bogliacino & Laura Jiménez & Gianluca Grimalda, 2015. "Consultative, Democracy and Trust," Documentos de Trabajo, Escuela de Economía 12696, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID.
    12. Mouzas, Stefanos & Ford, David, 2006. "Managing relationships in showery weather: The role of umbrella agreements," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(12), pages 1248-1256, November.
    13. Rufo, M.J. & Martín, J. & Pérez, C.J., 2016. "A Bayesian negotiation model for quality and price in a multi-consumer context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 132-141.
    14. Bales, Adam & Cohen, Daniel & Handfield, Toby, 2013. "Decision theory for agents with incomplete preferences," MPRA Paper 49954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Johannes Spinnewijn & Frans Spinnewyn, 2015. "Revising claims and resisting ultimatums in bargaining problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(2), pages 91-116, June.
    16. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak, 1996. "Preference for Information," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1114, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    17. Ogliastri, Enrique & Quintanilla, Carlos & Benetti, Sara, 2023. "International negotiation prototypes: The impact of culture," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    18. Vignola, Raffaele & McDaniels, Tim L. & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Negotiation analysis for mechanisms to deliver ecosystem services: The case of soil conservation in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 22-31.
    19. Ray R. Hashemi & Louis A. Le Blanc, 2000. "Resource Allocation through Negotiation and Compromise: A Database Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 325-345, July.
    20. George Ainslie, 2012. "Pure hyperbolic discount curves predict “eyes open” self-control," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 3-34, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wop:iasawp:ir97050. 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iiasaat.html .

    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.