IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wzb/wzebiv/fsiv01-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nash Bargaining Solution with Coalitions and The Joint Bargaining Paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Suchan Chae
  • Paul Heidhues

Abstract

We propose a solution for bargaining problems where coalitions are bargainers. The solution generalizes the Nash solution and allows one to interpret a coalition as an institutional player whose preferences are obtained by aggregating the preferences of the individual members. One implication of our solution is that forming a coalition is unprofitable in pure-bargaining situations (the joint-bargaining paradox). We show, however, that forming a coalition can be profitable in a non-pure bargaining situation. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Die Nash Verhandlungslösung mit Koalitionen und Harsanyi's Verhandlungsparadox) In der vorliegenden Arbeit schlagen wir ein Lösungskonzept für Verhandlungsspiele vor, bei denen die verhandelnden Parteien aus Koalitionen von Individuen bestehen können. Unser Lösungskonzept basiert auf einer Verallgemeinerung der Nash-Verhandlungslösung. Nach unserem Lösungskonzept kann eine Koalition als ein institutioneller Spieler aufgefasst werden, dessen Präferenzordnung auf einer Aggregierung der Präferenzen seiner Mitglieder basiert. Eine Implikation unserer Verhandlungslösung ist, dass Koalitionen in "reinen Verhandlungsspielen" nicht im Interesse der Individuen sind. In "nicht reinen Verhandlungsspielen" hingegen können Koalitionen durchaus vorteilhaft seien.

Suggested Citation

  • Suchan Chae & Paul Heidhues, 2001. "Nash Bargaining Solution with Coalitions and The Joint Bargaining Paradox," CIG Working Papers FS IV 01-15, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
  • Handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:fsiv01-15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2001/iv01-15.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. H. Peyton Young, 1987. "On Dividing an Amount According to Individual Claims or Liabilities," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 398-414, August.
    2. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    3. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 1990. "Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 107-126, March.
    4. Horn, Henrik & Wolinsky, Asher, 1988. "Worker Substitutability and Patterns of Unionisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(391), pages 484-497, June.
    5. Moulin, Herve, 1985. "The separability axiom and equal-sharing methods," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 120-148, June.
    6. Motty Perry & Larry Samuelson, 1994. "Open- versus Closed-Door Negotiations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 348-359, Summer.
    7. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    8. Stephen W. Salant & Sheldon Switzer & Robert J. Reynolds, 1983. "Losses From Horizontal Merger: The Effects of an Exogenous Change in Industry Structure on Cournot-Nash Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(2), pages 185-199.
    9. Thomson, A., 1989. "The Consistency Principle," RCER Working Papers 192, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    10. Cai, Hongbin, 2000. "Bargaining on Behalf of a Constituency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 234-273, June.
    11. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2005. "Alliances and negotiations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 128-141, March.
    12. Haller, Hans & Holden, Steinar, 1997. "Ratification Requirement and Bargaining Power," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 38(4), pages 825-851, November.
    13. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    14. Segendorff, Bjorn, 1998. "Delegation and Threat in Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 266-283, May.
    15. Byoung Heon Jun, 1989. "Non-cooperative Bargaining and Union Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 56(1), pages 59-76.
    16. Lensberg, Terje, 1988. "Stability and the Nash solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 330-341, August.
    17. Raymond Deneckere & Carl Davidson, 1985. "Incentives to Form Coalitions with Bertrand Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, Winter.
    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. Steffen Huck & Kai A. Konrad, 2004. "Merger Profitability and Trade Policy," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(1), pages 107-122, March.

    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. Chae, Suchan & Heidhues, Paul, 2004. "A group bargaining solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 37-53, July.
    2. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    3. Suchan Chae & Hervé Moulin, 2010. "Bargaining among groups: an axiomatic viewpoint," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 39(1), pages 71-88, March.
    4. Inderst, Roman & Wey, Christian, 2003. "Bargaining, Mergers, and Technology Choice in Bilaterally Oligopolistic Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, Spring.
    5. Daniel Cardona & Clara Ponsatí, 2015. "Representing a democratic constituency in negotiations: delegation versus ratification," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(2), pages 399-414, September.
    6. Federico Valenciano & Annick Laruelle, 2005. "Bargaining In Committees Of Representatives: The Optimal Voting Rule," Working Papers. Serie AD 2005-24, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    7. Annick Laruelle & Federico Valenciano, 2008. "Bargaining in Committees of Representatives," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 93-106, January.
    8. Roman Inderst & Christian Wey, 2000. "Market Structure, Bargaining, and Technology Choice," CIG Working Papers FS IV 00-12, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    9. Roberto Serrano, 2005. "Fifty years of the Nash program, 1953-2003," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(2), pages 219-258, May.
    10. Roberto Serrano, 2004. "Fifty Years of the Nash Program, 1953-2003," Working Papers 2004-20, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    11. William Thomson, 2011. "Consistency and its converse: an introduction," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 15(4), pages 257-291, December.
    12. Binmore, Ken & Osborne, Martin J. & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1992. "Noncooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 179-225, Elsevier.
    13. Bas J. Dietzenbacher & Aleksei Y. Kondratev, 2023. "Fair and Consistent Prize Allocation in Competitions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(6), pages 3319-3339, June.
    14. M. Hinojosa & E. Romero-Palacios & J. Zarzuelo, 2015. "Consistency of the Shapley NTU value in G-hyperplane games," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(4), pages 259-278, December.
    15. Suchan Chae & Paul Heidhues, 1999. "Bargaining Power of a Coalition in Parallel Bargaining: Advantage of Multiple Cable System Operators," CIG Working Papers FS IV 99-01, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    16. Kaminski, Marek M., 2000. "'Hydraulic' rationing," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 131-155, September.
    17. Lommerud, Kjell Erik & Straume, Odd Rune & Sorgard, Lars, 2005. "Downstream merger with upstream market power," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 717-743, April.
    18. Berninghaus, Siegfried & Güth, Werner & Keser, Claudia, 1999. "Decentralized or collective bargaining in a strategy experiment," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1999,90, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    19. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    20. Jerry Green, 2005. "Compensatory transfers in two-player decision problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 33(2), pages 159-180, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nash Bargaining Solution; Coalition; Joint-Bargaining Paradox;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory

    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:wzb:wzebiv:fsiv01-15. 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: Jennifer Rontganger (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cicwzde.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.