IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v31y2022i4d10.1007_s10726-022-09782-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pre-bargaining Investment Implies a Pareto Ranking of Bargaining Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Shiran Rachmilevitch

    (University of Haifa, Mount Carmel)

Abstract

n players choose investment levels that determine a bargaining problem. Investments model pre-bargaining preparations such as arming and hiring legal aid—costly actions that turn out to be beneficial only if the agents do not reach an agreement. In the bargaining problem, payoffs are distributed according to an exogenously given bargaining solution. Investment influences positively the investor’s disagreement payoff, but it also has a cost, which is modeled as a shrinkage of the feasible set. Two types of shrinkage are considered. Under either one, the investment is a waste from an ex-post point of view, because the agents end up reaching an agreement. The equilibrium level of wastefulness is increasing in the bargaining solution’s disagreement sensitivity. The Kalai-Smorodinsky solution is less disagreement sensitive than the Nash solution, and is therefore better.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2022. "Pre-bargaining Investment Implies a Pareto Ranking of Bargaining Solutions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 769-787, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:31:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-022-09782-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-022-09782-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-022-09782-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-022-09782-1?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. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    2. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2015. "The Nash solution is more utilitarian than egalitarian," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 463-478, November.
    3. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    4. Anbarci, Nejat & Skaperdas, Stergios & Syropoulos, Constantinos, 2002. "Comparing Bargaining Solutions in the Shadow of Conflict: How Norms against Threats Can Have Real Effects," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-16, September.
    5. Kalai, Ehud & Samet, Dov, 1985. "Monotonic Solutions to General Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(2), pages 307-327, March.
    6. Thomson, William, 1987. "Monotonicity of bargaining solutions with respect to the disagreement point," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 50-58, June.
    7. Chun, Youngsub, 1988. "The equal-loss principle for bargaining problems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 103-106.
    8. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    9. Adam Kalai & Ehud Kalai, 2013. "Cooperation in Strategic Games Revisited," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(2), pages 917-966.
    10. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2011. "A characterization of the Kalai–Smorodinsky bargaining solution by disagreement point monotonicity," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(4), pages 691-696, November.
    11. William P. Rogerson, 1992. "Contractual Solutions to the Hold-Up Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 59(4), pages 777-793.
    12. Sertel, Murat R., 1992. "The Nash bargaining solution manipulated by pre-donations is Talmudic," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 45-55, September.
    13. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    14. Lawrence M. DeBrock & Alvin E. Roth, 1981. "Strike Two: Labor-Management Negotiations in Major League Baseball," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 413-425, Autumn.
    15. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2011. "Disagreement point axioms and the egalitarian bargaining solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(1), pages 63-85, February.
    16. de Meza, David & Lockwood, Ben, 2010. "Too much investment? A problem of endogenous outside options," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 503-511, July.
    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. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.

    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. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.
    2. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Lim, Wooyoung & Neary, Philip & Newton, Jonathan, 2018. "Conventional contracts, intentional behavior and logit choice: Equality without symmetry," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 273-294.
    3. Youngsub Chun, 2021. "Axioms concerning uncertain disagreement points in 2-person bargaining problems," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 6(1), pages 37-58, December.
    4. Naeve-Steinweg, Elisabeth, 2002. "Mechanisms supporting the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 25-36, September.
    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. Vincent Martinet & Pedro Gajardo & Michel De Lara & Héctor Ramírez Cabrera, 2011. "Bargaining with intertemporal maximin payoffs," EconomiX Working Papers 2011-7, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    7. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2015. "A Tale of Two Bargaining Solutions," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-14, June.
    8. Claus-Jochen Haake & Cheng-Zhong Qin, 2018. "On unification of solutions to the bargaining problem," Working Papers CIE 113, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    9. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    10. Joan-Maria Esteban & József Sákovics, 2005. "A Theory of Agreements in the Shadow of Conflict," Working Papers 255, Barcelona School of Economics.
    11. 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.
    12. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    13. Nejat Anbarci, 2008. "Relative Responsiveness of Bargaining Solutions to Changes in Status-quo Payoffs," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 36(3), pages 293-299, September.
    14. Anbarci, Nejat & Boyd III, John H., 2011. "Nash demand game and the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 14-22, January.
    15. Ismail Saglam, 2022. "Bridging bargaining theory with the regulation of a natural monopoly," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 307-344, September.
    16. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    17. Ismail Saglam, 2023. "Centralized bargaining with pre‐donation in a vertically related industry," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 91(3), pages 233-259, June.
    18. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    19. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Rey-Bellet, Luc, 2021. "Positive feedback in coordination games: Stochastic evolutionary dynamics and the logit choice rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 355-373.
    20. Tomoeda, Kentaro, 2019. "Efficient investments in the implementation problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 247-278.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bargaining; Pre-bargaining investment; Disagreement sensitivity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions

    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:spr:grdene:v:31:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-022-09782-1. 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.