IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v37y1993i4p692-708.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intransigence in Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Steven J. Brams

    (New York University)

  • Ann E. Doherty

    (Newton Centre, MA)

Abstract

Three-party negotiations are analyzed in which the players are able not only to rank alternatives but also have a preference for impasse. In a dynamic model, players progressively invoke fallback positions to try to prevent inferior outcomes from being implemented in a game of incomplete information. A player's intransigence, or unwillingness to retreat to fallback positions, generally works to his or her advantage. Greater size—or, equivalently, an enhanced ability to effect preferred outcomes—also helps, but intransigence is a potent force by itself. In fact, intransigence may prevail despite the fact that there is a so-called Condorcet alternative that could defeat it and all other alternatives. The analysis illuminates the rational basis of disagreement and why it develops in the manner it does. Extensions of the dynamic model are discussed, including making the preferences of the players for impasse endogenous.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven J. Brams & Ann E. Doherty, 1993. "Intransigence in Negotiations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(4), pages 692-708, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:37:y:1993:i:4:p:692-708
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002793037004006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002793037004006
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002793037004006?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. Steven J. Brams, 1992. "A Generic Negotiation Game," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 4(1), pages 53-66, January.
    2. Crawford, Vincent P, 1982. "A Theory of Disagreement in Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 607-637, May.
    3. Kalyan Chatterjee & William Samuelson, 1983. "Bargaining under Incomplete Information," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 835-851, October.
    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. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour, 2001. "Fallback Bargaining," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 287-316, July.
    2. Lester A. Zeager, "undated". "Negotiations for Refugee Repatriation or Local Settlement: A Game-Theoretic Analysis," Working Papers 9730, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    3. Ellen Lust-Okar & A.F.K. Organski, 2002. "Coalitions and Conflict: the Case of the Palestinian-Israeli Negotiations Over the West Bank," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 19(2), pages 23-58, September.
    4. Scharpf, Fritz W. & Mohr, Matthias, 1994. "Efficient self-coordination in policy networks: A simulation study," MPIfG Discussion Paper 94/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    5. Ali Nasiri Khiavi & Mehdi Vafakhah & Seyed Hamidreza Sadeghi, 2022. "Comparative prioritization of sub-watersheds based on Flood Generation potential using physical, hydrological and co-managerial approaches," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(6), pages 1897-1917, April.

    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. Sambuddha Ghosh & Gabriele Gratton & Caixia Shen, 2019. "Intimidation: Linking Negotiation And Conflict," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 60(4), pages 1589-1618, November.
    2. Olivier Bochet & Manshu Khanna & Simon Siegenthaler, 2021. "Beyond the Dividing Pie: Multi-Issue Bargaining in the Laboratory," Working Papers 20210070, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Sep 2021.
    3. Kjell Hausken, 1997. "Game-theoretic and Behavioral Negotiation Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(6), pages 511-528, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Schotter, Andrew & Zheng, Wei & Snyder, Blaine, 2000. "Bargaining Through Agents: An Experimental Study of Delegation and Commitment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 248-292, February.
    6. Lampros Boukas & Diogo Pinheiro & Alberto Pinto & Stylianos Xanthopoulos & Athanasios Yannacopoulos, 2009. "Behavioural and Dynamical Scenarios for Contingent Claims Valuation in Incomplete Markets," Papers 0903.3657, arXiv.org.
    7. Lau, Stephanie, 2011. "Investment incentives in bilateral trading," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 538-552.
    8. Andrés Abeliuk & Gerardo Berbeglia & Pascal Van Hentenryck, 2015. "Bargaining Mechanisms for One-Way Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-21, September.
    9. Jean-Michel Benkert, 2015. "Bilateral trade with loss-averse agents," ECON - Working Papers 188, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jul 2022.
    10. Guth, Werner & Ritzberger, Klaus & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "On the Nash bargaining solution with noise," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 697-713, June.
    11. Rustichini, Aldo & Satterthwaite, Mark A & Williams, Steven R, 1994. "Convergence to Efficiency in a Simple Market with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(5), pages 1041-1063, September.
    12. Carrillo, Juan D. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2011. "No trade," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 66-87, January.
    13. Gayer Gabrielle & Segev Ella, 2012. "Revealing Private Information in Bargaining," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-34, December.
    14. Athanassoglou, Stergios & Brams, Steven J. & Sethuraman, Jay, 2008. "Minimizing regret when dissolving a partnership," MPRA Paper 12776, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Alexander Kritikos, 2006. "The Impact of Compulsory Arbitration on Bargaining Behavior: An Experimental Study," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 293-315, August.
    16. Dirk Alboth & Anat Lerner & Jonathan Shalev, 2001. "Profit Maximizing in Auctions of Public Goods," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 3(4), pages 501-525, October.
    17. Karbowski, Adam, 2019. "Greed and fear in downstream R&D games," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 32, pages 63-76.
    18. Yu, Ning & Chmura, Thorsten & Pitz, Thomas & Sun, Ning, 2010. "Bargaining over perfect complements owned separately: With experimental test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 115-118, May.
    19. Miettinen, Topi & Perea, Andrés, 2015. "Commitment in alternating offers bargaining," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 12-18.
    20. Ohad Kadan, 2004. "Equilibrium in the Two Player, k-Double Auction with Affiliate Private Values," Working Papers 2004.12, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

    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:37:y:1993:i:4:p:692-708. 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.