IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Multiperson Bargaining and Strategic Complexity

Listed author(s):

The authors investigate the effect of introducing costs of complexity in the n- person unanimity bargaining game. In particular, the paper provides a justification for stationary equilibrium strategies in the class of games where complexity costs matter. As is well-known, every individually rational allocation is sustainable as a subgame perfect equilibrium in this game if players are sufficiently patient. By limiting ourselves to strategies which can be implemented by a finite-state machine and by suitably modifying the definition of complexity for the purpose of analysing a single extension form, we find that complexity costs do not reduce the range of possible allocations but do limit the amount of delay that can occur in any agreement and also do exclude use of non-stationary strategies in equilibrium. However, a `noisy Nash equilibrium' with complexity costs turns out to sustain on the unique stationary subgame perfect equilibrium allocation

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Paper provided by Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge in its series Cambridge Working Papers in Economics with number 9733.

in new window

Date of creation: Sep 1997
Handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:9733
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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:cam:camdae:9733. 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: (Jake Dyer)

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.