The Game of Negotiations: Ordering Issues and Implementing Agreements
We study a two-issue bargaining situation in which the surplus of one issue is public information, while that of the other issue is private information to one of the parties. Bargaining is by alternating offers under common time-discounting. The bargaining agenda is determined endogenously since players are free to offer on any number of outstanding issues. Offers must, however, be accepted or rejected in their entirety. Once an offer has been accepted it is not renegotiable. We study this game under two alternative rules for implementing agreements. In the first, partial agreements are implemented as they are reached, in the alternative setting implementation is joint, so that even if an offer on one issue is accepted consumption of this surplus is nevertheless delayed until the second issue is also settled. We show that the order in which issues are bargained in equilibrium is determined by three things: the implementation rule, the type of the informed player and the initial beliefs of the uninformed player. Specifically, an issue-by-issue bargaining agenda arises only when a low-valuation informed player faces an opponent who believes him to be likely a high-valuation type. In contrast to suggestions in the negotiation practitioner literature, such initial agenda offers always involve concessions (much smaller allocations to the informed player than in a bargain without agenda offers.) We also show that it is the implementation rule which determines which issue leads in the agenda. When implementation takes place as agreements are reached, then the issue of known size is negotiated first. If agreements are implemented only after all issues are settled, then, if order is relevant at all, large issues are settled first. All parties prefer the former rules of implementation to the latter.
|Date of creation:||01 Aug 2000|
|Contact details of provider:|| Phone: 1 212 998 3820|
Fax: 1 212 995 4487
Web page: http://www.econometricsociety.org/pastmeetings.asp
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
- Rubinstein, Ariel, 1985. "A Bargaining Model with Incomplete Information about Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1151-1172, September.
- Fernandez, Raquel & Glazer, Jacob, 1991.
"Striking for a Bargain between Two Completely Informed Agents,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 240-252, March.
- Raquel Fernandez & Jacob Glazer, 1989. "Striking for a Bargain Between Two Completely Informed Agents," NBER Working Papers 3108, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Weinberger, Catherine J., 2000. "Selective Acceptance and Inefficiency in a Two-Issue Complete Information Bargaining Game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 262-293, May.
- Cho, In-Koo, 1987. "A Refinement of Sequential Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(6), pages 1367-1389, November.
- Lutz-Alexander Busch & Ignatius Horstmann, 1999. "Endogenous Incomplete Contracts: A Bargaining Approach," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(4), pages 956-975, August.
- Lutz-Alexander Busch & Ignatius J. Horstmann, 1999. "Signaling via an agenda in multi-issue bargaining with incomplete information," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 13(3), pages 561-575.
- Fershtman, Chaim, 2000.
"A Note on Multi-Issue Two-Sided Bargaining: Bilateral Procedures,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 216-227, February.
- Fershtman, C., 1998. "A Note on Multi-Issue Two-Sided Bargaining: Bilateral Procedures," Papers 06-98, Tel Aviv.
- Kalai, Ehud, 1977.
"Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons,"
Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
- Ehud Kalai, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Discussion Papers 179, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Grossman, Sanford J. & Perry, Motty, 1986.
"Sequential bargaining under asymmetric information,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 120-154, June.
- Sanford J. Grossman & Motty Perry, 1986. "Sequential Bargaining Under Asymmetric Information," NBER Technical Working Papers 0056, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Fershtman, Chaim, 1990. "The importance of the agenda in bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 224-238, September.
- Busch, Lutz-Alexander & Horstmann, Ignatius J, 1997. "Bargaining Frictions, Bargaining Procedures and Implied Costs in Multiple-Issue Bargaining," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 64(256), pages 669-680, November.
- In-Koo Cho & David M. Kreps, 1987. "Signaling Games and Stable Equilibria," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 179-221.
- Inderst, Roman, 2000. "Multi-issue Bargaining with Endogenous Agenda," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 64-82, January.
- Busch, Lutz-Alexander & Wen, Quan, 1995.
"Perfect Equilibria in Negotiation Model,"
Econometric Society, vol. 63(3), pages 545-565, May.
- Busch, L-A. & Wen, Q., 1991. "Perfect Equilibria in a Negotiation Model," University of Western Ontario, The Centre for the Study of International Economic Relations Working Papers 9108, University of Western Ontario, The Centre for the Study of International Economic Relations.
- Lang, Kevin & Rosenthal, Robert W, 2001. "Bargaining Piecemeal or All at Once?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 526-540, July.
- Lutz-Alexander Bush & Shouyong Shi & Quan Wen, 1998. "Bargaining with Surplus Destruction," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 31(4), pages 915-932, November.
- Perry, Motty, 1986. "An Example of Price Formation in Bilateral Situations: A Bargaining Model with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(2), pages 313-321, March.
- Bac, Mehmet & Raff, Horst, 1996. "Issue-by-Issue Negotiations: The Role of Information and Time Preference," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 125-134, March.
- Anat R. Admati & Motty Perry, 1987. "Strategic Delay in Bargaining," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 54(3), pages 345-364.
- Busch, Lutz-Alexander & Horstmann, Ignatius, 1997. "A Comment on Issue-by-Issue Negotiations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 144-148, April.
- Clara Ponsati & Joel Watson, 1998. "Multiple-Issue Bargaining and Axiomatic Solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 26(4), pages 501-524.
- Byoung Heon Jun, 1989. "Non-cooperative Bargaining and Union Formation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(1), pages 59-76.
- Haller, Hans & Holden, Steinar, 1990. "A letter to the editor on wage bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 232-236, October.
- Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Infinite-Horizon Models of Bargaining with One-Sided Incomplete Information," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1098, David K. Levine.
- Avery Christopher & Zemsky Peter B., 1994. "Money Burning and Multiple Equilibria in Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 154-168, September. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)