IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Axiomatic Bargaining on Economic Enviornments with Lott

Most contributions in axiomatic bargaining are phrased in the space of utilities. This comes in sharp contrast with standards in most other fields of economic theory. The present paper shows how Nash’s original axiomatic system can be rephrased in a natural class of economic environments with lotteries, and how his uniqueness result can be recovered, provided one completes the system with a property of independence with respect to preferences over unfeasible alternatives. Similar results can be derived for the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution if and only if bargaining may involve multiple goods. The paper also introduces a distinction between welfarism and cardinal welfarism, and emphasizes that the Nash solution is ordinally invariant on the class of von Neumann-Morgensterm preferences.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Brown University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 2009-5.

in new window

Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:bro:econwp:2009-5
Contact details of provider: Postal: Department of Economics, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Peters, H.J.M. & Tijs, S.H., 1985. "Characterization of all individually monotonic bargaining solutions," Other publications TiSEM 52f5a6d5-dcac-4fec-9b8e-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  2. Aumann, Robert J & Kurz, Mordecai, 1977. "Power and Taxes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(5), pages 1137-61, July.
  3. Peters, Hans & Wakker, Peter, 1991. "Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives and Revealed Group Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(6), pages 1787-1801, November.
  4. Dutta, Bhaskar & Jackson, Matthew O & Le Breton, Michel, 2001. "Strategic Candidacy and Voting Procedures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 1013-37, July.
  5. Zvi Safra & Dov Samet, 2003. "An ordinal solution to bargaining problems with many players," Game Theory and Information 0310002, EconWPA.
  6. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kfir Eliaz, 2009. "Reason-Based Choice: A Bargaining Rationale for the Attraction and Compromise Effects," Working Papers 2009-4, Brown University, Department of Economics.
  7. Roemer, John E., 1988. "Axiomatic bargaining theory on economic environments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-31, June.
  8. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
  9. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi, 1995. "A Cardinal Characterization of the Rubinstein-Safra-Thomson Axiomatic Bargaining Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(5), pages 1241-49, September.
  10. Geoffroy de Clippel & Camelia Bejan, 2009. "No Profitable Decomposition in Quasi-Linear Allocation Problems," Working Papers 2009-6, Brown University, Department of Economics.
  11. Hanany, Eran, 2007. "Appeals immune bargaining solution with variable alternative sets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 72-84, April.
  12. Elisha A. Pazner & David Schmeidler, 1978. "Egalitarian Equivalent Allocations: A New Concept of Economic Equity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 671-687.
  13. Chambers, Christopher P., 2005. "Allocation rules for land division," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 236-258, April.
  14. Burgos, Albert & Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi, 2002. "Bargaining and Boldness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 28-51, January.
  15. Kibris, Ozgur, 2004. "Egalitarianism in ordinal bargaining: the Shapley-Shubik rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 157-170, October.
  16. David M. Grether & Charles R. Plott, 1982. "Nonbinary Social Choice: An Impossibility Theorem," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 143-149.
  17. Campbell, Donald E, 1992. "Implementation of Social Welfare Functions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(3), pages 525-33, August.
  18. EHLERS, Lars & WEYMARK, John A., 2001. "Candidate Stability and Nonbinary Social Choice," Cahiers de recherche 2001-30, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  19. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1976. "Independence of nonfeasible alternatives, and independence of nonoptimal alternatives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 488-493, June.
  20. Samet, Dov & Safra, Zvi, 2005. "A family of ordinal solutions to bargaining problems with many players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 89-106, January.
  21. Myerson, Roger B, 1984. "Two-Person Bargaining Problems with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 461-87, March.
  22. Thomson, William, 1994. "Cooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 35, pages 1237-1284 Elsevier.
  23. 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 1171-86, September.
  24. Marc Fleurbaey, 2003. "On the informational basis of social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 347-384, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bro:econwp:2009-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Brown Economics Webmaster)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.