IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v66y1999i3p733-741..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fair Bargains: Distributive Justice and Nash Bargaining Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Mariotti

Abstract

The Suppes-Sen dominance relation is a weak criterion of impartiality in distributive justice. I propose its application to Nash bargaining theory. The Nash Bargaining Solution (NBS) is characterized by replacing the controversial Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives axiom with an axiom embodying the Suppes-Sen principle. This allows a clear interpretation of the NBS as a fair arbitration scheme. In addition, the proposed characterization is more robust than the standard one with respect to variations in the domain of bargaining problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Mariotti, 1999. "Fair Bargains: Distributive Justice and Nash Bargaining Theory," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(3), pages 733-741.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:66:y:1999:i:3:p:733-741.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-937X.00106
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Corazzini, Luca & Passarelli, Francesco, 2017. "Voting as a lottery," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 129-137.
    3. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2015. "The Nash solution is more utilitarian than egalitarian," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 463-478, November.
    4. 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.
    5. repec:eee:ecolet:v:159:y:2017:i:c:p:7-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Richard B. Howarth & Matthew A. Wilson, 2006. "A Theoretical Approach to Deliberative Valuation: Aggregation by Mutual Consent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 1-16.
    7. Xu, Yongsheng & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2013. "Rationality and solutions to nonconvex bargaining problems: Rationalizability and Nash solutions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 66-70.
    8. Xu, Yongsheng & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2011. "Proportional Nash solutions - A new and procedural analysis of nonconvex bargaining problems," CCES Discussion Paper Series 42, Center for Research on Contemporary Economic Systems, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.
    9. Eyal Winter & Oscar Volij & Nir Dagan, 2002. "A characterization of the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(4), pages 811-823.
    10. Xu, Yongsheng & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2006. "Alternative characterizations of three bargaining solutions for nonconvex problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 86-92, October.
    11. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2007. "Bargaining in committees as an extension of Nash's bargaining theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 291-305, January.
    12. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2001. "Perfect Equilibria in a Model of Bargaining with Arbitration," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 170-195, October.
    13. David Dillenberger & Philipp Sadowski, 2008. "Ashamed to be Selfish," PIER Working Paper Archive 08-037, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    14. 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).
    15. repec:wly:econjl:v:128:y:2018:i:611:p:1609-1633 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Michele Lombardi & Marco Mariotti, 2009. "Uncovered bargaining solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 38(4), pages 601-610, November.
    17. Luís Carvalho, 2014. "A Constructive Proof of the Nash Bargaining Solution," Working Papers Series 2 14-01, ISCTE-IUL, Business Research Unit (BRU-IUL).
    18. Xu, Yongsheng & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2018. "An Equitable Nash Solution to Nonconvex Bargaining Problems," Discussion Paper Series 680, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    19. Vartiainen, Hannu, 2007. "Collective choice with endogenous reference outcome," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 172-180, January.
    20. Yongsheng Xu & Naoki Yoshihara, 2018. "An equitable Nash solution to nonconvex bargaining problems," Working Papers SDES-2018-11, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Oct 2018.
    21. Marco Mariotti & Roberto Veneziani, 2018. "Opportunities as Chances: Maximising the Probability that Everybody Succeeds," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(611), pages 1609-1633, June.
    22. Hans Kremers & Harold Houba, "undated". "Bargaining for an Efficient and Fair Allocation of Emission Permits to Developing Countries," Energy and Environmental Modeling 2007 24000028, EcoMod.
    23. Xu, Yongsheng, 2012. "Symmetry-based compromise and the Nash solution to convex bargaining problems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 484-486.
    24. Randhir, Timothy & Shriver, Deborah M., 2009. "Deliberative valuation without prices: A multiattribute prioritization for watershed ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 3042-3051, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • 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:oup:restud:v:66:y:1999:i:3:p:733-741.. 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: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.