IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v23y1979i3p561-576.html

The Finite Negotiation Problem

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Rice

    (Department of Mathematics, University of Georgia)

Abstract

A finite negotiation problem is a finite, two-person, non-zero-sum noncooperative game. A negotiated solution to a problem is an outcome associated with two pure strategies, one for each player, which is arrived at by a negotiation process. The problem posed and solved in this article is the specification of a solution theory which reflects the expectations of negotiators and captures the strategic possibilities implicit in the original game. Instead of approaching the theory through axioms which imply the existence of a unique solution, this study describes a negotiating scenario which, when exactly described, is itself a game. Given the information of who moves first in the negotiation game, there is an equilibrium outcome, and this is taken as the solution of the problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Rice, 1979. "The Finite Negotiation Problem," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(3), pages 561-576, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:23:y:1979:i:3:p:561-576
    DOI: 10.1177/002200277902300309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002200277902300309
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/002200277902300309?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    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. Dasgupta Siddhartha & Devadoss Stephen, 2002. "Equilibrium Contracts In a Bilateral Monopoly with Unequal Bargaining Powers," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 43-71.
    2. Michele Lombardi & Naoki Yoshihara, 2020. "Partially-honest Nash implementation: a full characterization," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 871-904, October.
    3. Rudolf Vetschera & Michael Filzmoser & Ronald Mitterhofer, 2014. "An Analytical Approach to Offer Generation in Concession-Based Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-99, January.
    4. Erica L. Plambeck & Terry A. Taylor, 2005. "Sell the Plant? The Impact of Contract Manufacturing on Innovation, Capacity, and Profitability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(1), pages 133-150, January.
    5. Britz, V. & Herings, P.J.J. & Predtetchinski, A., 2012. "On the convergence to the Nash bargaining solution for endogenous bargaining protocols," Research Memorandum 030, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    6. Makoto Hagiwara & Shunsuke Hanato, 2021. "A strategic justification of the constrained equal awards rule through a procedurally fair multilateral bargaining game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 233-243, March.
    7. Kalyan Chatterjee & Gary L. Lilien, 1984. "Efficiency of Alternative Bargaining Procedures," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(2), pages 270-295, June.
    8. Beghin, John C & Lovell, C A Knox, 1993. "Trade and Efficiency Effects of Domestic Content Protection: The Australian Tobacco and Cigarette Industries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(4), pages 623-631, November.
    9. Tremewan, James & Vanberg, Christoph, 2018. "Voting rules in multilateral bargaining: using an experiment to relax procedural assumptions," Working Papers 0651, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    10. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(1), pages 145-179, January.
    11. Ruffle, Bradley J. & Sosis, Richard, 2006. "Cooperation and the in-group-out-group bias: A field test on Israeli kibbutz members and city residents," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 147-163, June.
    12. Tianwen Chen & Ronghu Zhou & Changqing Liu & Xiang Xu, 2023. "Research on Coordination in a Dual-Channel Green Supply Chain under Live Streaming Mode," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, January.
    13. Hertweck Matthias Sebastian, 2013. "Strategic wage bargaining, labor market volatility, and persistence," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 123-149, October.
    14. Liang Mao, 2017. "Subgame perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model with deterministic procedures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 485-500, April.
    15. Robert Shimer, 2006. "On-the-Job Search and Strategic Bargaining," Contributions to Economic Analysis, in: Structural Models of Wage and Employment Dynamics, pages 37-59, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    16. Joan Esteban & József Sákovics, 2008. "A Theory of Agreements in the Shadow of Conflict: The Genesis of Bargaining Power," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 227-252, November.
    17. Maria Montero & Alex Possajennikov, 2021. "An Adaptive Model of Demand Adjustment in Weighted Majority Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    18. Shady S. Atallah & Miguel I. Gómez & Jon M. Conrad, 2017. "Specification of Spatial-Dynamic Externalities and Implications for Strategic Behavior in Disease Control," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 209-229.
    19. 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.
    20. Benoît Lengaigne, 2004. "Nash : changement de programme ?," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 114(5), pages 637-662.

    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:sae:jocore:v:23:y:1979:i:3:p:561-576. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.