Relative Responsiveness of Bargaining Solutions to Changes in Status-quo Payoffs
It is a well-known fact that several prominent bargaining solutions are responsive to changes in status-quo (i.e., disagreement or fallback) payoffs. When an agent’s status-quo payoff increases, his solution payoff either stays the same or increases. A fully general result for these solutions’ status-quo point ranking is impossible to establish. In this paper, using an important class of bargaining problems, a ranking of the relative status-quo point responsiveness of prominent bargaining solutions is obtained. Using the Constant Elasticity of Substitution class of bargaining problems, regardless of the concavity of the Pareto frontier and the level of increase in one’s status-quo payoff, we find the equal gains solution is the most responsive with respect to changes in status-quo payoffs, followed by the Nash solution. The equal sacrifice solutions is the least responsive, followed by the Kalai/Smorodinsky solution. Copyright International Atlantic Economic Society 2008
Volume (Year): 36 (2008)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Postal:Suite 650, International Tower, 229 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 965-1555
Fax: (404) 965-1556
Web page: http://www.iaes.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11293/PS2|
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.:
- Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
- Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
- Kalai, Ehud, 1977.
"Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons,"
Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
- Ehud Kalai, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Discussion Papers 179, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
- Roth, Alvin E, 1979. "Proportional Solutions to the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 775-777, May.
- Anbarci, Nejat & Skaperdas, Stergios & Syropoulos, Constantinos, 2002.
"Comparing Bargaining Solutions in the Shadow of Conflict: How Norms against Threats Can Have Real Effects,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-16, September.
- Anbarci, N. & Skaperdas, S. & Syropoulos, C., 2000. "Comparing Bargaining Solutions in the Shadow of Conflict: How Norms Against Threats Can Have Real Effects," Papers 00-01-19, California Irvine - School of Social Sciences.
- Nejat Anbarci, 1997. "Noncooperative foundations for the kalai-smorodinsky and equal sacrifice solutions via prominence structures," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 25(4), pages 403-411, December.
- 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.
- Alvin E Roth, 2008. "Axiomatic Models of Bargaining," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000002376, David K. Levine. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:atlecj:v:36:y:2008:i:3:p:293-299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.