IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v15y2007i1p63-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-binding agreements and fairness in commons dilemma games

Author

Listed:
  • Axel Ostmann
  • Holger Meinhardt

Abstract

Usually, common pool games are analyzed without taking into account the cooperative features of the game, even when communication and non-binding agreements are involved. Whereas equilibria are inefficient, negotiations may induce some cooperation and may enhance efficiency. In the paper, we propose to use tools of cooperative game theory to advance the understanding of results in dilemma situations that allow for communication. By doing so, we present a short review of earlier experimental evidence given by Hackett, Schlager, and Walker 1994 (HSW) for the conditional stability of non-binding agreements established in face-to-face multilateral negotiations. For an experimental test, we reanalyze the HSW data set in a game-theoretical analysis of cooperative versions of social dilemma games. The results of cooperative game theory that are most important for the application are explained and interpreted with respect to their meaning for negotiation behavior. Then, theorems are discussed that cooperative social dilemma games are clear (alpha- and beta-values coincide) and that they are convex (it follows that the core is “large”): The main focus is on how arguments of power and fairness can be based on the structure of the game. A second item is how fairness and stability properties of a negotiated (non-binding) agreement can be judged. The use of cheap talk in evaluating experiments reveals that besides the relation of non-cooperative and cooperative solutions, say of equilibria and core, the relation of alpha-, beta- and gamma-values are of importance for the availability of attractive solutions and the stability of the such agreements. In the special case of the HSW scenario, the game shows properties favorable for stable and efficient solutions. Nevertheless, the realized agreements are less efficient than expected. The realized (and stable) agreements can be located between the equilibrium, the egalitarian solution and some fairness solutions. In order to represent the extent to which the subjects obey efficiency and fairness, we present and discuss patterns of the corresponding excess vectors. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Axel Ostmann & Holger Meinhardt, 2007. "Non-binding agreements and fairness in commons dilemma games," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 15(1), pages 63-96, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:15:y:2007:i:1:p:63-96
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-006-0019-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10100-006-0019-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-006-0019-2?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Driessen, Theo S.H. & Meinhardt, Holger I., 2005. "Convexity of oligopoly games without transferable technologies," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 102-126, July.
    2. Holger Meinhardt, 1999. "Common Pool Games are Convex Games," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 1(2), pages 247-270, April.
    3. Bezalel Peleg & Peter Sudholter, 2004. "Bargaining Sets of Voting Games," Discussion Paper Series dp376, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    4. Meinhardt, Holger, 1999. "Common Pool Games Are Convex Games," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 1(2), pages 247-270.
    5. Theo S. H. Driessen & Holger Meinhardt, 2001. "(Average-) Convexity Of Common Pool And Oligopoly Tu-Games," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(02n03), pages 141-158.
    6. Hart, Sergiu & Mas-Colell, Andreu, 1989. "Potential, Value, and Consistency," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 589-614, May.
    7. Hackett Steven & Schlager Edella & Walker James, 1994. "The Role of Communication in Resolving Commons Dilemmas: Experimental Evidence with Heterogeneous Appropriators," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 99-126, September.
    8. Dutta, Prajit K & Sundaram, Rangarajan K, 1993. "The Tragedy of the Commons?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(3), pages 413-426, July.
    9. Morton Davis & Michael Maschler, 1965. "The kernel of a cooperative game," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 223-259, September.
    10. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    11. M. Maschler & B. Peleg & L. S. Shapley, 1979. "Geometric Properties of the Kernel, Nucleolus, and Related Solution Concepts," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 303-338, November.
    12. Maschler, Michael, 1992. "The bargaining set, kernel, and nucleolus," 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 18, pages 591-667, Elsevier.
    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. Meinhardt, Holger Ingmar, 2021. "Disentangle the Florentine Families Network by the Pre-Kernel," MPRA Paper 106482, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Dutta, Bhaskar & Ehlers, Lars & Kar, Anirban, 2010. "Externalities, potential, value and consistency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(6), pages 2380-2411, November.
    2. Meinhardt, Holger Ingmar, 2021. "Disentangle the Florentine Families Network by the Pre-Kernel," MPRA Paper 106482, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Endre Bjørndal & Kurt Jörnsten, 2010. "Flow sharing and bankruptcy games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 39(1), pages 11-28, March.
    4. Sudholter, Peter, 1998. "Axiomatizations of Game Theoretical Solutions for One-Output Cost Sharing Problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 142-171, July.
    5. Alexander Karpov & Semyon Yurkov, 2012. "Generalized bankruptcy problem," HSE Working papers WP BRP 08/FE/2012, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    6. Trine Tornøe Platz & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2013. "Forming and Dissolving Partnerships in Cooperative Game Situations," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 15(2), pages 208-228, April.
    7. Emilio Calvo, 2021. "Redistribution of tax resources: a cooperative game theory approach," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 633-686, December.
    8. Elena Iñarra & Roberto Serrano & Ken-Ichi Shimomura, 2020. "The Nucleolus, the Kernel, and the Bargaining Set: An Update," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 71(2), pages 225-266.
    9. Lloyd S. Shapley, 1992. "Kernels of Replicated Market Games," UCLA Economics Working Papers 654, UCLA Department of Economics.
    10. Kóczy Á., László, 2006. "A Neumann-féle játékelmélet [Neumanns game theory]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 31-45.
    11. Panfei Sun & Dongshuang Hou & Hao Sun, 2022. "Optimization implementation of solution concepts for cooperative games with stochastic payoffs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 691-724, November.
    12. Yair Tauman & Andriy Zapechelnyuk, 2010. "On (non-) monotonicity of cooperative solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 39(1), pages 171-175, March.
    13. Roberto Serrano, 2004. "Fifty Years of the Nash Program, 1953-2003," Working Papers 2004-20, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    14. Meinhardt, Holger Ingmar, 2020. "On the Replication of the Pre-Kernel and Related Solutions," MPRA Paper 102676, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Ruiz, Luis M. & Valenciano, Federico & Zarzuelo, Jose M., 1998. "The Family of Least Square Values for Transferable Utility Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 109-130, July.
    16. Maria Montero, 2023. "Coalition Formation in Games with Externalities," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 525-548, June.
    17. Roberto Serrano, 2005. "Fifty years of the Nash program, 1953-2003," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(2), pages 219-258, May.
    18. Driessen, Theo S.H. & Meinhardt, Holger I., 2005. "Convexity of oligopoly games without transferable technologies," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 102-126, July.
    19. William Thomson, 2007. "On the existence of consistent rules to adjudicate conflicting claims: a constructive geometric approach," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 11(3), pages 225-251, November.
    20. H. Andrew Michener & Daniel J. Myers, 1998. "Probabilistic Coalition Structure Theories," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(6), pages 830-860, December.

    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:spr:cejnor:v:15:y:2007:i:1:p:63-96. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.