Extending the Nash solution to choice problems with reference points
In 1985 Aumann axiomatized the Shapley NTU value by non-emptiness, efficiency, unanimity, scale covariance, conditional additivity, and independence of irrelevant alternatives. We show that, when replacing unanimity by "unanimity for the grand coalition" and translation covariance, these axioms characterize the Nash solution on the class of n-person choice problems with reference points. A classical bargaining problem consists of a convex feasible set that contains the disagreement point here called reference point. The feasible set of a choice problem does not necessarily contain the reference point and may not be convex. However, we assume that it satisfies some standard properties. Our result is robust so that the characterization is still valid for many subclasses of choice problems, among those is the class of classical bargaining problems. Moreover, we show that each of the employed axioms – including independence of irrelevant alternatives – may be logically independent of the remaining axioms.
|Date of creation:||13 Aug 2012|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark|
Phone: 65 50 32 33
Fax: 65 50 32 37
Web page: http://www.sdu.dk/ivoe
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Hans Peters & Dries Vermeulen, 2012. "WPO, COV and IIA bargaining solutions for non-convex bargaining problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(4), pages 851-884, November.
- Rubinstein, Ariel & Zhou, Lin, 1999.
"Choice problems with a 'reference' point,"
Mathematical Social Sciences,
Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 205-209, May.
- Rubinstein, A. & Zhou, L., 1997. "Choice Problems with a "Reference" Point," Papers 28-97, Tel Aviv.
- A. Rubinstein & L. Zhou, 1998. "Choice Problems with a "Reference" Point," Princeton Economic Theory Papers 00s3, Economics Department, Princeton University.
- Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
- Marco Mariotti & Antonio Villar, 2005. "The Nash rationing problem," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 33(3), pages 367-377, 09.
- Bezalel Peleg & Peter Sudhölter & José Zarzuelo, 2012. "On the impact of independence of irrelevant alternatives: the case of two-person NTU games," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 143-156, March.
- Aumann, Robert J, 1985. "An Axiomatization of the Non-transferable Utility Value," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(3), pages 599-612, May.
- Peters Hans & Vermeulen Dries, 2006. "WPO, COV and IIA bargaining solutions," Research Memorandum 021, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
- Herrero, Maria Jose, 1989. "The nash program: Non-convex bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 266-277, December.
- Mariotti, Marco, 1998. "Extending Nash's Axioms to Nonconvex Problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 377-383, February.
- Conley, John P. & Wilkie, Simon, 1996. "An Extension of the Nash Bargaining Solution to Nonconvex Problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 26-38, March.
- Maschler, M & Owen, G, 1989. "The Consistent Shapley Value for Hyperplane Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 18(4), pages 389-407. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)