IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/mateco/v117y2025ics0304406825000102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nash oligarchies

Author

Listed:
  • Rachmilevitch, Shiran

Abstract

A bargaining solution is a Nash oligarchy if there exists a set of players O, the oligarchy, such that in every bargaining problem every player outside O is allocated his disagreement payoff, and the oligarchs share the surplus according to the |O|-person Nash solution. The Nash bargaining solution corresponds to the case where O contains all players, and dictatorial solutions correspond to singleton Os. I show that a solution satisfies three standard axioms together with a condition that balances utilitarianism and egalitarianism if and only if it is a Nash oligarchy. Strengthening the condition implies that the oligarchy contains at most two players. Strengthening it further implies a dictatorship.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2025. "Nash oligarchies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:mateco:v:117:y:2025:i:c:s0304406825000102
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2025.103093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304406825000102
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jmateco.2025.103093?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2015. "The Nash solution is more utilitarian than egalitarian," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 463-478, November.
    2. Stan Cheung & Marco Mariotti & Roberto Veneziani, 2024. "The Hard Problem and the Tyranny of the Loser," Working Papers 971, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    3. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    4. Kibris, Ozgur, 2004. "Egalitarianism in ordinal bargaining: the Shapley-Shubik rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 157-170, October.
    5. Marco Mariotti, 1999. "Fair Bargains: Distributive Justice and Nash Bargaining Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 733-741.
    6. Yaari, Menahem E., 1981. "Rawls, edgeworth, shapley, nash: Theories of distributive justice re-examined," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-39, February.
    7. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2022. "Between Utilitarianism and Egalitarianism: Some Ethical Aspects of the Nash Bargaining Solution," Springer Books, in: Emin Karagözoğlu & Kyle B. Hyndman (ed.), Bargaining, chapter 0, pages 131-150, Springer.
    8. Bossert, Walter & Nosal, Ed & Sadanand, Venkatraman, 1996. "Bargaining under Uncertainty and the Monotone Path Solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 173-189, June.
    9. Arrhenius, Gustaf, 2000. "An Impossibility Theorem for Welfarist Axiologies," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 247-266, October.
    10. Bossert, Walter & Peters, Hans, 2001. "Minimax Regret and Efficient Bargaining under Uncertainty," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-10, January.
    11. Hans Peters & Dries Vermeulen, 2012. "WPO, COV and IIA bargaining solutions for non-convex bargaining problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(4), pages 851-884, November.
    12. Bigelow, John Payne & Anbarci, Nejat, 1993. "Non-dictatorial, Pareto-monotonic, cooperative bargaining : An impossibility theorem," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 551-558, November.
    13. Peters, H.J.M. & Tijs, S.H., 1985. "Characterization of all individually monotonic bargaining solutions," Other publications TiSEM 52f5a6d5-dcac-4fec-9b8e-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Jeon, Jee Seon & Hwang, Ilwoo, 2022. "The emergence and persistence of oligarchy: A dynamic model of endogenous political power," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    15. Thomson, William, 1994. "Cooperative 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 2, chapter 35, pages 1237-1284, Elsevier.
    16. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2023. "The Nash bargaining solution: sometimes more utilitarian, sometimes more egalitarian," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(3), pages 457-464, October.
    17. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2019. "Egalitarianism, utilitarianism, and the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(4), pages 741-751, April.
    18. Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2024. "The Nash bargaining solution and utilitarian–egalitarian social welfare functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    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. Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2024. "The Nash bargaining solution and utilitarian–egalitarian social welfare functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    2. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.
    3. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2019. "Egalitarianism, utilitarianism, and the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(4), pages 741-751, April.
    4. Youngsub Chun, 2020. "Some Impossibility Results on the Converse Consistency Principle in Bargaining," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 59-65, November.
    5. Amparo M. Mármol Conde & Clara Ponsatí Obiols, 2006. "Bargaining Multiple Issues with Leximin Preferences," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2006/05, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    6. Nejat Anbarci & Ching-jen Sun, 2011. "Distributive justice and the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(3), pages 453-470, September.
    7. Jaume García Segarra & Miguel Ginés Vilar, 2011. "Weighted Proportional Losses Solution," ThE Papers 10/21, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    8. Lombardi, Michele & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2010. "Alternative characterizations of the proportional solution for nonconvex bargaining problems with claims," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 229-232, August.
    9. Claus-Jochen Haake & Cheng-Zhong Qin, 2018. "On unification of solutions to the bargaining problem," Working Papers CIE 113, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    10. L. Monroy & V. Rubiales & A. M. Mármol, 2017. "The conservative Kalai–Smorodinsky solution for multiple scenario bargaining," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 285-299, April.
    11. Yongsheng Xu & Naoki Yoshihara, 2020. "Nonconvex Bargaining Problems: Some Recent Developments," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 7-41, November.
    12. Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2013. "Stagnation proofness and individually monotonic bargaining solutions," Working Papers 2013/04, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    13. Geoffroy de Clippel, 2009. "Axiomatic Bargaining on Economic Enviornments with Lott," Working Papers 2009-5, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    14. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2021. "No individual priorities and the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 855-863, May.
    15. Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2019. "Stagnation proofness in n-agent bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 14(1), pages 215-224, March.
    16. Jaume Garcia-Segarra & Miguel Gines-Vilar, 2012. "The stagnation effect and the individually strict monotonic path solutions," Working Papers 2012/10, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    17. 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.
    18. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2022. "Pre-bargaining Investment Implies a Pareto Ranking of Bargaining Solutions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 769-787, August.
    19. Luís Carvalho, 2014. "A Constructive Proof of the Nash Bargaining Solution," Working Papers Series 2 14-01, ISCTE-IUL, Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL).
    20. Forgo, F. & Szidarovszky, F., 2003. "On the relation between the Nash bargaining solution and the weighting method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 108-116, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions

    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:mateco:v:117:y:2025:i:c:s0304406825000102. 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/jmateco .

    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.