IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/igtrxx/v18y2016i04ns0219198916500134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intrinsic Comparative Statics of a Nash Bargaining Solution

Author

Listed:
  • Michael R. Caputo

    (Department of Economics, University of Central Florida, P. O. Box 161400, Orlando, FL 32816-1400, USA)

Abstract

A generalization of the class of bargaining problems examined by Engwerda and Douven [(2008) On the sensitivity matrix of the Nash bargaining solution, Int. J. Game Theory 37, 265–279] is studied. The generalized class consists of nonconvex bargaining problems in which the feasible set satisfies the requirement that the set of weak Pareto-optimal solutions can be described by a smooth function. The intrinsic comparative statics of the aforesaid class are derived and shown to be characterized by a symmetric and positive semidefinite matrix, and an upper bound to the rank of the matrix is established. A corollary to this basic result is that a Nash bargaining solution is intrinsically a locally nondecreasing function of its own disagreement point. Other heretofore unknown results are similarly deduced from the basic result.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael R. Caputo, 2016. "Intrinsic Comparative Statics of a Nash Bargaining Solution," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(04), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:igtrxx:v:18:y:2016:i:04:n:s0219198916500134
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219198916500134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219198916500134
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219198916500134?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. Jacob Engwerda & Rudy Douven, 2008. "On the sensitivity matrix of the Nash bargaining solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 37(2), pages 265-279, June.
    2. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    3. M. Hossein Partovi & Michael R. Caputo, 2006. "A Complete Theory Of Comparative Statics For Differentiable Optimization Problems," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 31-67, February.
    4. Chun, Youngsub & Thomson, William, 1988. "Monotonicity properties of bargaining solutions when applied to economics," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 11-27, February.
    5. William Thomson, 2009. "Bargaining and the theory of cooperative games: John Nash and beyond," RCER Working Papers 554, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    6. Xu, Yongsheng & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2006. "Alternative characterizations of three bargaining solutions for nonconvex problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 86-92, October.
    7. 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.
    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. Cheng-Zhong Qin & Shuzhong Shi & Guofu Tan, 2015. "Nash bargaining for log-convex problems," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 58(3), pages 413-440, April.
    2. Mizukami, Hideki & Wakayama, Takuma, 2020. "Dominant strategy implementation of bargaining solutions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 60-67.
    3. Diskin, A. & Koppel, M. & Samet, D., 2011. "Generalized Raiffa solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 452-458.
    4. 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.
    5. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    6. Jingyi Xue, 2018. "Fair division with uncertain needs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 105-136, June.
    7. Daniele Cassese & Paolo Pin, 2025. "Decentralized pure exchange processes on networks," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 64(3), pages 427-463, May.
    8. Nejat Anbarci & Nick Feltovich, 2013. "How sensitive are bargaining outcomes to changes in disagreement payoffs?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(4), pages 560-596, December.
    9. Lombardi, Michele & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2010. "Alternative characterizations of the proportional solution for nonconvex bargaining problems with claims," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 229-232, August.
    10. Walter Bossert & Hans Peters, 2022. "Individual disagreement point concavity and the bargaining problem," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(1), pages 6-15, March.
    11. Eric van Damme & Xu Lang, 2022. "Two-Person Bargaining when the Disagreement Point is Private Information," Papers 2211.06830, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    12. Maria Gallego & David Scoones, 2011. "Intergovernmental negotiation, willingness to compromise, and voter preference reversals," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 36(3), pages 591-610, April.
    13. Navarro, Noemí & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2020. "On the empirical validity of axioms in unstructured bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-145.
    14. David H. Wolpert & James Bono, 2010. "A theory of unstructured bargaining using distribution-valued solution concepts," Working Papers 2010-14, American University, Department of Economics.
    15. 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.
    16. Ching-jen Sun, 2018. "The bargaining correspondence: when Edgeworth meets Nash," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(2), pages 337-359, August.
    17. Yongsheng Xu & Naoki Yoshihara, 2020. "Nonconvex Bargaining Problems: Some Recent Developments," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 7-41, November.
    18. 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.
    19. Jacob Engwerda & Rudy Douven, 2008. "On the sensitivity matrix of the Nash bargaining solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 37(2), pages 265-279, June.
    20. Yongsheng Xu & Naoki Yoshihara, 2022. "Bargaining theory over opportunity assignments and the egalitarian solution," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 198-219, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nash bargaining solution; disagreement point; comparative statics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory

    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:wsi:igtrxx:v:18:y:2016:i:04:n:s0219198916500134. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/igtr/igtr.shtml .

    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.