IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/qmetal/2012_013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Concessions-Based Mechanism for Meta-Bargaining Problems

Author

Listed:
  • Marco-Gil, Maria del Carmen

    (Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Department of Economics)

  • Peris, Josep E.

    (Universidad de Alicante, Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Teoría Económica)

  • Subiza, Begoña

    (Universidad de Alicante, Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Teoría Económica)

Abstract

In 1950, Nash's seminal paper introduced the axiomatic approach to the analysis of bargaining situations. Since then, many bargaining solutions have appeared and been axiomatically analyzed. The fact that agents, when face a bargaining problem, can come up with different solution concepts (that is, di§erent notions of fairness and equity) was first introduced by van Damme (1986) by means of the meta-bargaining model. In this paper we present and axiomatically analyze a mechanism for solving meta-bargaining problems, which we call Unanimous-Concession. As an example, we show that the Nash solution is the result of the meta-bargaining process we define, when agents have dual egalitarian criteria. Finally, we compare, from an axiomatic and descriptive point of view, our proposal with other meta-bargaining mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco-Gil, Maria del Carmen & Peris, Josep E. & Subiza, Begoña, 2012. "A Concessions-Based Mechanism for Meta-Bargaining Problems," QM&ET Working Papers 12-13, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:qmetal:2012_013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://web.ua.es/es/dmcte/documentos/qmetwp1213.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chun, Youngsub & Thomson, William, 1992. "Bargaining problems with claims," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 19-33, August.
    2. Walter Trockel, 2002. "A universal meta bargaining implementation of the Nash solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(3), pages 581-586.
    3. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    4. Anbarci, Nejat & Yi, Gyoseob, 1992. "A meta-allocation mechanism in cooperative bargaining," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 175-179, February.
    5. Myerson, Roger B, 1977. "Two-Person Bargaining Problems and Comparable Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1631-1637, October.
    6. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    7. Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith, 1982. "The Role of Information in Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1123-1142, September.
    8. Eric van Damme, 1984. "The Nash Bargaining Solution is Optimal," Discussion Papers 597, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    9. Damme, Eric van, 1986. "The Nash bargaining solution is optimal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 78-100, February.
    10. Josep Enric Peris Ferrando & Begoña Subiza & María del Carmen Marco, 1995. "A Mechanism For Meta-Bargaining Problems," Working Papers. Serie AD 1995-20, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    11. Herrero, Carmen & Marco, Maria Carmen, 1993. "Rational equal-loss solutions for bargaining problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 273-286, November.
    12. Naeve-Steinweg, E., 2004. "The averaging mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 410-424, February.
    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. M. Carmen Marco & Josep E. Peris & Begoña Subiza, 2020. "A Concessions-Based Procedure for Meta-Bargaining Problems," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 105-120, November.
    2. Naeve-Steinweg, E., 2004. "The averaging mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 410-424, February.
    3. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    4. Naeve-Steinweg, Elisabeth, 2002. "Mechanisms supporting the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 25-36, September.
    5. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    6. Alfredo Valencia-Toledo & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2020. "A sequential bargaining protocol for land rental arrangements," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 24(1), pages 65-99, June.
    7. Joan-Maria Esteban & József Sákovics, 2005. "A Theory of Agreements in the Shadow of Conflict," Working Papers 255, Barcelona School of Economics.
    8. Papatya Duman & Walter Trockel, 2016. "On non-cooperative foundation and implementation of the Nash solution in subgame perfect equilibrium via Rubinstein's game," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 1(1), pages 83-107, December.
    9. Navarro, Noemí & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2020. "On the empirical validity of axioms in unstructured bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-145.
    10. Claus-Jochen Haake & Walter Trockel, 2020. "Introduction to the Special Issue “Bargaining”," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 1-6, November.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Joan Esteban & József Sákovics, 2002. "Endogenous bargaining power," Economics Working Papers 644, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    14. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin & Elif Özcan-Tok, 2019. "Between anchors and aspirations: a new family of bargaining solutions," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 23(1), pages 53-73, June.
    15. Vidal-Puga, Juan J., 2008. "Forming coalitions and the Shapley NTU value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 190(3), pages 659-671, November.
    16. Eric van Damme & Xu Lang, 2022. "Two-Person Bargaining when the Disagreement Point is Private Information," Papers 2211.06830, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    17. Herrero, Carmen & Maschler, Michael & Villar, Antonio, 1999. "Individual rights and collective responsibility: the rights-egalitarian solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 59-77, January.
    18. Jaume García Segarra & Miguel Ginés Vilar, 2011. "Weighted Proportional Losses Solution," ThE Papers 10/21, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    19. Bas Dietzenbacher & Hans Peters, 2022. "Characterizing NTU-bankruptcy rules using bargaining axioms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 871-888, November.
    20. KIbrIs, Özgür & TapkI, Ipek Gürsel, 2010. "Bargaining with nonanonymous disagreement: Monotonic rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 233-241, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bargaining problem; mechanism; meta-bargaining; axiomatic approach;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    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:ris:qmetal:2012_013. 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: Julio Carmona (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dmalies.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.