IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v118y2019icp60-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competitive equilibrium as a bargaining solution: An axiomatic approach

Author

Listed:
  • Alon, Shiri
  • Lehrer, Ehud

Abstract

The paper introduces an axiomatic characterization of a solution to bargaining problems. Bargaining problems are specified by: (a) the preference relations of the bargaining parties (b) resources that are the subject of bargaining, and (c) a pre-specified disagreement bundle for each party that would result if bargaining fails. The approach is ordinal in that parties' preferences are over bundles of goods and do not imply any risk attitudes. The resulting solution is accordingly independent of the specific utilities chosen to represent parties' preferences. We propose axioms that characterize a solution matching each bargaining problem with an exchange economy, and assigning the set of equilibrium allocations corresponding to one equilibrium price vector of that economy. The axioms describe a solution that results from an impartial arbitration process, expressing the view that arbitration is a natural method to settle disputes in which agents have conflicting interests, but can all gain from compromise.

Suggested Citation

  • Alon, Shiri & Lehrer, Ehud, 2019. "Competitive equilibrium as a bargaining solution: An axiomatic approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 60-71.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:118:y:2019:i:c:p:60-71
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2019.08.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825619301174
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2019.08.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dávila, J. & Eeckhout, J., 2008. "Competitive bargaining equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 269-294, March.
    2. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    3. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    4. Safra, Zvi & Samet, Dov, 2004. "An ordinal solution to bargaining problems with many players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 129-142, January.
    5. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    6. Trockel, Walter, 1996. "A Walrasian approach to bargaining games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 295-301, June.
    7. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi, 1995. "A Cardinal Characterization of the Rubinstein-Safra-Thomson Axiomatic Bargaining Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(5), pages 1241-1249, September.
    8. William Thomson, 2007. "Fair Allocation Rules," RCER Working Papers 539, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    9. Perez-Castrillo, David & Wettstein, David, 2006. "An ordinal Shapley value for economic environments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 127(1), pages 296-308, March.
    10. Chen, Mark A. & Maskin, Eric S., 1999. "Bargaining, Production, and Monotonicity in Economic Environments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 140-147, November.
    11. Moulin, Herve & Thomson, William, 1988. "Can everyone benefit from growth? : Two difficulties," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 339-345, September.
    12. Korthues, Bernd, 2000. "Characterization of an extended Walrasian concept for open economies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 449-461, May.
    13. Rubinstein, Ariel & Safra, Zvi & Thomson, William, 1992. "On the Interpretation of the Nash Bargaining Solution and Its Extension to Non-expected Utility Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(5), pages 1171-1186, September.
    14. Nagahisa, Ryo-ichi, 1991. "A local independence condition for characterization of Walrasian allocations rule," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 106-123, June.
    15. Elisha A. Pazner & David Schmeidler, 1978. "Egalitarian Equivalent Allocations: A New Concept of Economic Equity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 92(4), pages 671-687.
    16. 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.
    17. Nicolo, Antonio & Perea, Andres, 2005. "Monotonicity and equal-opportunity equivalence in bargaining," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 221-243, March.
    18. Roemer, John E., 1988. "Axiomatic bargaining theory on economic environments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-31, June.
    19. Thomson, William, 1988. "A study of choice correspondences in economies with a variable number of agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 237-254, December.
    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. Pérez-Castrillo, David & Sun, Chaoran, 2022. "The proportional ordinal Shapley solution for pure exchange economies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 96-109.
    2. Eric van Damme & Xu Lang, 2022. "Two-Person Bargaining when the Disagreement Point is Private Information," Papers 2211.06830, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    3. Muna Adilah & Hsin Rau & Katrina Mae Procopio, 2023. "Using an Axiomatic Design Approach to Develop a Product Innovation Process with Circular and Smart Design Aspects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-24, January.

    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. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    2. Nicolo, Antonio & Perea, Andres, 2005. "Monotonicity and equal-opportunity equivalence in bargaining," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 221-243, March.
    3. Vincent Martinet & Pedro Gajardo & Michel de Lara, 2021. "Bargaining On Monotonic Economic Environments," Working Papers hal-03206724, HAL.
    4. Thomson, William, 2011. "Chapter Twenty-One - Fair Allocation Rules," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 21, pages 393-506, Elsevier.
    5. de Clippel, Geoffroy, 2015. "On the redundancy of the implicit welfarist axiom in bargaining theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 624-647.
    6. Geoffroy de Clippel, 2009. "Axiomatic Bargaining on Economic Enviornments with Lott," Working Papers 2009-5, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    7. 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.
    8. Biung†Ghi Ju & Juan D. Moreno†Ternero, 2017. "Fair Allocation Of Disputed Properties," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1279-1301, November.
    9. Serrano, Roberto & Shimomura, Ken-Ichi, 1998. "Beyond Nash Bargaining Theory: The Nash Set," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 286-307, December.
    10. Miguel Ginés Vilar & Francisco Marhuenda Hurtado, 1998. "Welfarism in specific economic domain," Working Papers. Serie AD 1998-06, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    11. Joan Esteban & Jozsef Sakovics, 1999. "Why do lions get the lion's share? A Hobbesian theory of agreements," Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 37, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    12. Yoshihara, Naoki, 2003. "Characterizations of bargaining solutions in production economies with unequal skills," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 256-285, February.
    13. Joan Esteban & József Sákovics, 2002. "Endogenous bargaining power," Economics Working Papers 644, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    14. Valenciano, Federico & Zarzuelo, Jose M., 1997. "On Nash's Hidden Assumption," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 21(1-2), pages 266-281, October.
    15. Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2015. "A non-cooperative approach to the ordinal Shapley–Shubik rule," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 111-118.
    16. Gerber, Anke & Upmann, Thorsten, 2006. "Bargaining solutions at work: Qualitative differences in policy implications," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 162-175, September.
    17. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    18. Jingyi Xue, 2018. "Fair division with uncertain needs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 105-136, June.
    19. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    20. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Roemer, John E., 2012. "A common ground for resource and welfare egalitarianism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 832-841.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bargaining; Exchange economy; Ordinal bargaining solution; Competitive equilibrium;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D51 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Exchange and Production Economies
    • D58 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Computable and Other Applied General Equilibrium Models

    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:eee:gamebe:v:118:y:2019:i:c:p:60-71. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    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.