IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v61y1994i2p357-374..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stationarity, Rationalizability and Bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • In-Koo Cho

Abstract

Without assuming rational expectations, we examine the implications of a stationarity assumption in a standard bargaining model with one-sided incomplete information, where the seller makes an offer in each period. Instead of computing a weakly stationary equilibrium, we invoke rationalizability (Bernheim (1984) and Pearce (1984)) combined with the restriction that the buyer's acceptance rule be weakly stationary. There exists a pair of rationalizable sets of pure strategies for the seller and the buyer which are weakly stationary. We demonstrate that any initial offer from the seller induced by a strategy rationalized by a weakly stationary acceptance rule for the buyer must entail the Coase property. Our result does not presume the selection of a particular equilibrium and follows directly from the weak stationarity assumption of the buyer's acceptance rule and the rational behaviour of the players.

Suggested Citation

  • In-Koo Cho, 1994. "Stationarity, Rationalizability and Bargaining," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 61(2), pages 357-374.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:61:y:1994:i:2:p:357-374.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/2297985
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roger Guesnerie, 2005. "Strategic Substitutabilities Versus Strategic Complementarities : Towards a General Theory of Expectational Coordination ?," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 115(4), pages 393-412.
    2. Pierpaolo Battigalli, 2006. "Rationalization In Signaling Games: Theory And Applications," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(01), pages 67-93.
    3. Battigalli, Pierpaolo, 2003. "Rationalizability in infinite, dynamic games with incomplete information," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 1-38, March.
    4. Kaya, Ayça & Liu, Qingmin, 2015. "Transparency and price formation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(2), May.
    5. Dongkyu Chang & Duk Gyoo Kim & Wooyoung Lim, 2022. "Positive and Negative Selection in Bargaining: An Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 9908, CESifo.
    6. Vincent Vannetelbosch, 1999. "Alternating-Offer Bargaining and Common Knowledge of Rationality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 111-138, October.
    7. Vannetelbosch, Vincent J., 1996. "On Rationalizability in Two-Person Alternating-Offer Bargaining," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 1996023, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    8. Xiao Luo & Xuewen Qian & Chen Qu, 2020. "Iterated elimination procedures," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(2), pages 437-465, September.
    9. In-Koo Cho, 2004. "Monotonicity and Rationalizability in Large Uniform Price and Double Auctions," Theory workshop papers 658612000000000076, UCLA Department of Economics.
    10. Shimoji, Makoto & Watson, Joel, 1998. "Conditional Dominance, Rationalizability, and Game Forms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 161-195, December.

    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:oup:restud:v:61:y:1994:i:2:p:357-374.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    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.