IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/huj/dispap/dp315.html

Bargaining with an Agenda

Author

Listed:
  • Barry O'Neill
  • Dov Samet
  • Zvi Wiener
  • Eyal Winter

Abstract

Gradual bargaining is represented by an agenda: a family of increasing sets of joint utilities, parameterized by time. A solution for gradual bargaining specifies an agreement at each time. We axiomatize an ordinal solution, i.e., one that is covariant with order-preserving transformations of utility. It can be viewed as the limit of a step-by-step bargaining in which the agreement of the last negotiation becomes the disagreement point for the next. The stepwise agreements may follow the Nash solution, the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution or many others.

Suggested Citation

  • Barry O'Neill & Dov Samet & Zvi Wiener & Eyal Winter, 2002. "Bargaining with an Agenda," Discussion Paper Series dp315, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    • Handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ratio.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/publications/dp315.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonard J. Mirman & Yair Tauman, 1982. "Demand Compatible Equitable Cost Sharing Prices," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 40-56, February.
    2. Sprumont, Yves, 1998. "Ordinal Cost Sharing," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 126-162, July.
    3. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    4. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    5. Safra, Zvi & Samet, Dov, 2004. "An ordinal solution to bargaining problems with many players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 129-142, January.
    6. Lin Zhou, 1997. "The Nash Bargaining Theory with Non-Convex Problems," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 681-686, May.
    7. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Zvi A. Livne, 1989. "On the Status Quo Sets Induced by the Raiffa Solution to the Two-Person Bargaining Problem," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 688-692, November.
    10. Fershtman, Chaim, 1990. "The importance of the agenda in bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 224-238, September.
    11. Daniel J. Seidmann & Eyal Winter, 1998. "A Theory of Gradual Coalition Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(4), pages 793-815.
    12. Nicolò, Antonio & Perea, Andrés, 2000. "A non-welfarist solution for two-person bargaining situations," UC3M Working papers. Economics 7222, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    13. 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.
    14. Calvo, Emilio & Peters, Hans, 2005. "Bargaining with ordinal and cardinal players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 20-33, July.
    15. Winter, Eyal, 1997. "Negotiations in multi-issue committees," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 323-342, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Meir, Reshef & Kalai, Gil & Tennenholtz, Moshe, 2018. "Bidding games and efficient allocations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 166-193.
    2. Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2015. "A non-cooperative approach to the ordinal Shapley–Shubik rule," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 111-118.
    3. Naeve-Steinweg, E., 2004. "The averaging mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 410-424, February.
    4. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    5. Forgo, F. & Szidarovszky, F., 2003. "On the relation between the Nash bargaining solution and the weighting method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 108-116, May.
    6. Safra, Zvi & Samet, Dov, 2004. "An ordinal solution to bargaining problems with many players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 129-142, January.
    7. Bossert, Walter & Peters, Hans, 2000. "Multi-attribute decision-making in individual and social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 327-339, November.
    8. S. Nuray Akin & Murat R. Sertel, 2007. "The Kalai-Smorodinsky Bargaining Solution Manipulated by Pre-Donations is Concessionary," Working Papers 0718, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    9. Youngsub Chun, 2021. "Axioms concerning uncertain disagreement points in 2-person bargaining problems," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 6(1), pages 37-58, December.
    10. Philip Grech & Oriol Tejada, 2018. "Divide the dollar and conquer more: sequential bargaining and risk aversion," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1261-1286, November.
    11. Hu, Tai-Wei & Rocheteau, Guillaume, 2020. "Bargaining under liquidity constraints: Unified strategic foundations of the Nash and Kalai solutions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    12. l'Haridon, Olivier & Malherbet, Franck & Pérez-Duarte, Sébastien, 2013. "Does bargaining matter in the small firms matching model?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 42-58.
    13. Calvo, Emilio & Peters, Hans, 2005. "Bargaining with ordinal and cardinal players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 20-33, July.
    14. Rath, Kali P. & Zhao, Gongyun, 2003. "Nonminimal product differentiation as a bargaining outcome," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 267-280, February.
    15. Özgür Kıbrıs, 2012. "Nash bargaining in ordinal environments," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(4), pages 269-282, December.
    16. Tai-Wei Hu & Guillaume Rocheteau & Lucie Lebeau & Younghwan In, 2018. "Gradual Bargaining in Decentralized Asset Markets," 2018 Meeting Papers 606, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    17. Boragan Aruoba, S. & Rocheteau, Guillaume & Waller, Christopher, 2007. "Bargaining and the value of money," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(8), pages 2636-2655, November.
    18. Dominik Karos & Nozomu Muto & Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2018. "A generalization of the Egalitarian and the Kalai–Smorodinsky bargaining solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1169-1182, November.
    19. Harri Ehtamo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen, 2001. "Interactive Multiple‐Criteria Methods for Reaching Pareto Optimal Agreements in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 475-491, November.
    20. Joan Esteban & Jozsef Sakovics, 1999. "Why do lions get the lion's share? A Hobbesian theory of agreements," Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 37, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    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:huj:dispap:dp315. 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: Michael Simkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crihuil.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.