IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hit/hituec/725.html

Bargaining theory over opportunity assignments and the egalitarian solution

Author

Listed:
  • Xu, Yongsheng
  • Yoshihara, Naoki

Abstract

This paper discusses issues of axiomatic bargaining problems over opportunity assignments. The fair arbitrator uses the principle of "equal opportunity" for all players to make the recommendation on resource allocations. A framework in such a context is developed and the egalitarian solution to standard bargaining problems is reformulated and axiomatically characterized.

Suggested Citation

  • Xu, Yongsheng & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2021. "Bargaining theory over opportunity assignments and the egalitarian solution," Discussion Paper Series 725, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    • Handle: RePEc:hit:hituec:725
    Note: This version: July 2021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hit-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/2056458/files/DP725.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomson, William, 1983. "Equity in exchange economies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 217-244, April.
    2. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    3. Wulf Gaertner & Yongsheng Xu, 2006. "Capability Sets as the Basis of a New Measure of Human Development," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 311-321.
    4. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    5. Herrero, Carmen, 1997. "Equitable opportunities: an extension," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 91-95, August.
    6. Xu, Yongsheng, 2003. "On ranking compact and comprehensive opportunity sets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 109-119, April.
    7. Yoshihara, Naoki, 2003. "Characterizations of bargaining solutions in production economies with unequal skills," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 256-285, February.
    8. Pattanaik, Prasanta K. & Xu, Yongsheng, 2000. "On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Economic Environments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 48-71, July.
    9. Yongsheng Xu, 2004. "On ranking linear budget sets in terms of freedom of choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(1), pages 281-289, February.
    10. Kranich, Laurence, 1996. "Equitable Opportunities: An Axiomatic Approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 131-147, October.
    11. Carmen Herrero, 1996. "Capabilities and utilities," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 2(1), pages 69-88, December.
    12. Yongsheng Xu, 2002. "Functioning, capability and the standard of living - an axiomatic approach," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(2), pages 387-399.
    13. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    14. Prasanta K. PATTANAIK & Yongsheng XU, 1990. "On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Terms of Freedom of Choice," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 1990036, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    15. Prasanta K. Pattanaik & Yongsheng Xu, 2007. "Minimal relativism, dominance, and standard of living comparisons based on functionings," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 59(2), pages 354-374, April.
    16. Roemer, John E., 1988. "Axiomatic bargaining theory on economic environments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-31, June.
    17. W. M. Gorman, 1980. "A Possible Procedure for Analysing Quality Differentials in the Egg Market," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(5), pages 843-856.
    18. Xu, Yongsheng & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2007. "Corrigendum to "Alternative characterizations of three bargaining solutions for nonconvex problems" [Games Econ. Behav. 57 (2006) 86-92]," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 358-359, November.
    19. Reiko Gotoh & Naoki Yoshihara, 2003. "A class of fair distribution rules à la Rawls and Sen," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 22(1), pages 63-88, August.
    20. Ernesto Savaglio & Stefano Vannucci, 2006. "On the Volume-Ranking of Opportunity Sets in Economic Environments," Department of Economics University of Siena 479, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.
    2. Sakamoto, Norihito, 2017. "Characterizations of Social Choice Correspondences Based on Equality of Capabilities in a Pure Exchange Economy," RCNE Discussion Paper Series 4, Research Center for Normative Economics, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.

    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. 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.
    2. Wulf Gaertner & Yongsheng Xu, 2011. "Reference-dependent rankings of sets in characteristics space," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(4), pages 717-728, October.
    3. Sakamoto, Norihito, 2017. "Characterizations of Social Choice Correspondences Based on Equality of Capabilities in a Pure Exchange Economy," RCNE Discussion Paper Series 4, Research Center for Normative Economics, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    4. Thomson, William, 2011. "Chapter Twenty-One - Fair Allocation Rules," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 21, pages 393-506, Elsevier.
    5. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 2013. "Capabilities as menus: A non-welfarist basis for QALY evaluation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 128-137.
    6. Wulf Gaertner, 2012. "Evaluating sets of objects in characteristics space," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 303-321, July.
    7. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    8. Reiko Gotoh & Naoki Yoshihara, 2018. "Securing basic well-being for all," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(4), pages 422-452, October.
    9. Stefano Vannucci, 2013. "A characterization of height-based extensions of principal filtral opportunity rankings," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID.
    10. Koichi Tadenuma & Yongsheng Xu, 2017. "Distributions of the budget sets: an axiomatic analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 221-237, January.
    11. Herrero, Carmen & Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Inigo & Nieto, Jorge, 1998. "Ranking opportunity profiles on the basis of the common opportunities," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 273-289, May.
    12. Mizukami, Hideki & Wakayama, Takuma, 2020. "Dominant strategy implementation of bargaining solutions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 60-67.
    13. Xu, Yongsheng, 2003. "On ranking compact and comprehensive opportunity sets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 109-119, April.
    14. Miyagishima, Kaname, 2012. "Ranking linear budget sets with different available goods: A note," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 234-238.
    15. Yoshihara, Naoki, 2003. "Characterizations of bargaining solutions in production economies with unequal skills," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 256-285, February.
    16. Ernesto Screpanti, 2006. "Taxation, Social Goods And The Distribution Of Freedom," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-12, February.
    17. Kaname Miyagishima, 2010. "Ranking linear budget sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 163-173, June.
    18. 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.
    19. Jun Matsuyama & Kenji Mori, 2011. "Freedom And Achievement Of Well‐Being And Adaptive Dynamics Of Capabilities," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 494-511, July.
    20. John Weymark, 2003. "Generalized Gini Indices of Equality of Opportunity," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 1(1), pages 5-24, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hit:hituec:725. 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: Hiromichi Miyake (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iehitjp.html .

    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.