IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v24y1980i3p525-535.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Note on the Zeuthen-Harsanyi Theory of Bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • Vincent P. Crawford

    (Department of Economics University of California, San Diego)

Abstract

This article shows that the conclusions of the Zeuthen-Harsanyi theory of bargaining, which is widely regarded as an alternative justification for Nash's solution of the bargaining problem, can be extremely sensitive to small changes in the assumption that both bargainers have identical perceptions of the costs of disagreement. Whether this is the case depends on whether bargainers' priors about those costs are optimistic, in a sense made precise in this article. An axiomatic framework for modeling bargaining outcomes when bargainers perceive the costs of disagreement differently is proposed, and it is shown that a class of solutions that generalize Nash's satisfy the natural generalizations of Nash's axioms.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincent P. Crawford, 1980. "A Note on the Zeuthen-Harsanyi Theory of Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(3), pages 525-535, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:24:y:1980:i:3:p:525-535
    DOI: 10.1177/002200278002400307
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002200278002400307
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/002200278002400307?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, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    2. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1972. "A Generalized Nash Solution for Two-Person Bargaining Games with Incomplete Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5-Part-2), pages 80-106, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2019. "Multiple local optima in Zeuthen–Hicks bargaining: an analysis of different preference models," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 33-53, May.

    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. Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith, 1982. "The Role of Information in Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1123-1142, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Geoffroy de Clippel & David Perez-Castrillo & David Wettstein, 2010. "Egalitarian Equivalence under Asymmetric Information," Working Papers 2010-5, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    4. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Pérez-Castrillo, David & Wettstein, David, 2012. "Egalitarian equivalence under asymmetric information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 413-423.
    5. Eric van Damme & Xu Lang, 2022. "Two-Person Bargaining when the Disagreement Point is Private Information," Papers 2211.06830, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    6. Kunter, Marcus, 2012. "Coordination via cost and revenue sharing in manufacturer–retailer channels," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 477-486.
    7. R. Harrison Wagner, 1979. "On The Unification of Two-Person Bargaining Theory," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(1), pages 71-101, March.
    8. 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.
    9. van Velthoven, Ben & van Winden, Frans, 1985. "Towards a politico-economic theory of social security," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 263-289, March.
    10. Mariotti, Marco, 1996. "Non-optimal Nash Bargaining Solutions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 15-20, July.
    11. Lv, Wei & Li, Hongyi & Tang, Jiafu, 2017. "Bargaining model of labor disputes considering social mediation and bounded rationalityAuthor-Name: Liu, Dehai," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(3), pages 1064-1071.
    12. 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.
    13. Lippman, Steven A. & McCardle, Kevin F. & Tang, Christopher S., 2013. "Using Nash bargaining to design project management contracts under cost uncertainty," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 199-207.
    14. Jan Cervenka, 2019. "Bargaining Power: Significance, Structure and Development," ACTA VSFS, University of Finance and Administration, vol. 13(1), pages 79-93.
    15. Binmore, Ken & Osborne, Martin J. & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1992. "Noncooperative 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 1, chapter 7, pages 179-225, Elsevier.
    16. Driesen, Bram & Perea, Andrés & Peters, Hans, 2012. "Alternating offers bargaining with loss aversion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 103-118.
    17. Ronghuo Zheng & Tinglong Dai & Katia Sycara & Nilanjan Chakraborty, 2016. "Automated Multilateral Negotiation on Multiple Issues with Private Information," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 612-628, November.
    18. Joan Esteban & József Sákovics, 2002. "Endogenous bargaining power," Economics Working Papers 644, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    19. Youngsub Chun, 2001. "The Separability Principle in Bargaining," Working Paper Series no43, Institute of Economic Research, Seoul National University.
    20. P. Ding & M. D. Gerst & G. Bang & M. E. Borsuk, 2015. "An Application of Automated Mediation to International Climate Treaty Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 885-903, September.

    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:24:y:1980:i:3:p:525-535. 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.