IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/the/publsh/4451.html

On bargaining norms as solutions to cost-minimization problems

Author

Listed:
  • Tatur, Tymon

    (Department of Economics, University of Bonn)

Abstract

This paper studies bargaining outcomes in economies in which agents may be able to impose outcomes that deviate from the relevant social norms but incur costs when they do so. It characterizes bargaining outcomes that are easiest for a society to sustain as part of a social norm which everybody will want to follow. Depending on technological assumptions, the approach yields the Nash bargaining solution, the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution, the equal monetary split, and other bargaining solutions. Set-valued solution concepts are derived that are relevant if one is unable or unwilling to make specific technological assumptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Tatur, Tymon, 2024. "On bargaining norms as solutions to cost-minimization problems," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 19(4), November.
    • Handle: RePEc:the:publsh:4451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20241443/40642/1239
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel & Safra, Zvi & Thomson, William, 1992. "On the Interpretation of the Nash Bargaining Solution and Its Extension to Non-expected Utility Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(5), pages 1171-1186, September.
    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. Houba, Harold & Tieman, Alexander F. & Brinksma, Rene, 1998. "The Nash bargaining solution for decision weight utility functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 41-48, July.
    2. Heyes, Anthony & Rickman, Neil & Tzavara, Dionisia, 2004. "Legal expenses insurance, risk aversion and litigation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 107-119, March.
    3. Eran Hanany & D. Marc Kilgour & Yigal Gerchak, 2007. "Final-Offer Arbitration and Risk Aversion in Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1785-1792, November.
    4. Craig Webb, 2010. "Agreeing to spin the subjective roulette wheel: Bargaining with subjective mixtures," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1005, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    5. Safra, Zvi & Segal, Uzi, 1998. "Constant Risk Aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 19-42, November.
    6. Kristoffer Berg & Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2020. "The Equal-Sacrifice Social Welfare Function with an Application to Optimal Income Taxation," CESifo Working Paper Series 8505, CESifo.
    7. Gugl, Elisabeth & Leroux, Justin, 2011. "Share the gain, share the pain? Almost transferable utility, changes in production possibilities, and bargaining solutions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 133-143.
    8. Nicolo, Antonio & Perea, Andres, 2005. "Monotonicity and equal-opportunity equivalence in bargaining," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 221-243, March.
    9. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2022. "Reasonable Nash demand games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 319-330, September.
    10. Pierre-André Chiappori & Olivier Donni, 2005. "Learning From a Piece of Pie: The Empirical Content of Nash Bargaining," Thema Working Papers 2006-07, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    11. Volij, Oscar, 2002. "A remark on bargaining and non-expected utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 17-24, September.
    12. Kobberling, Veronika & Peters, Hans, 2003. "The effect of decision weights in bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 154-175, May.
    13. Du, Shaofu & Zhu, Lili & Liang, Liang & Ma, Fang, 2013. "Emission-dependent supply chain and environment-policy-making in the ‘cap-and-trade’ system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 61-67.
    14. Chavas, Jean-Paul & Klein, Matthew J., 2020. "Estimating Intra-household Bargaining Power When Outside Options Are Endogenous," Staff Paper Series 595, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    15. Hanany, Eran, 2007. "Appeals immune bargaining solution with variable alternative sets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 72-84, April.
    16. Chambers, Christopher P. & Echenique, Federico, 2012. "When does aggregation reduce risk aversion?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 582-595.
    17. Jean-Paul Chavas & Jay Coggins, 2003. "On fairness and welfare analysis under uncertainty," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(2), pages 203-228, March.
    18. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2025. "Nash’s demand game and resource-allocation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 54(1), pages 1-14, June.
    19. Emin Karagözoğlu & Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2018. "Implementing egalitarianism in a class of Nash demand games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 495-508, October.
    20. Volij, Oscar & Winter, Eyal, 2002. "On risk aversion and bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 120-140, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games

    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:the:publsh:4451. 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: Editor Theoretical Economics The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Editor Theoretical Economics to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://econtheory.org .

    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.