IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/umamet/2010056.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimal Value Commitment in Bilateral Bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • Britz Volker

    (METEOR)

Abstract

We propose a new model to study the role of commitment as a sourceof strategic bargaining power. Two impatient players bargain aboutthe division of a pie under a standard bargaining protocol indiscrete time with time-invariant recognition probabilities.Instantaneous utility is linear, but players discount the future bya constant factor. Before bargaining starts, a player can commit notto enter into any agreement which gives him less than some utilitylevel. This commitment is perfectly binding initially. However, onceso much time has passed that even receiving the entire pie wouldyield less than the committed level of utility, then the commitmentbecomes void. Intuitively, this simply means that no player canremain committed to something which has become impossible. We use aslight refinement of subgame-perfect equilibrium as a solutionconcept. If only one player can commit, then we find an immediateand efficient agreement on a division which gives the committedplayer (strictly) between one half and the entire pie, the exactallocation being determined uniquely by the recognitionprobabilities. If both players can commit sequentially before thebargaining starts, we find a unique equilibrium division with afirst--mover advantage. Finally, we consider a version of the gamewhere both players commit simultaneously before the bargainingstarts. In this case, there is a range of equilibrium divisions.However, in the limit as the discount factor goes to one, no playerobtains less than one third of the pie, even with arbitrarily smallproposal power. Somewhat surprisingly, the equal split emerges asthe only division supported by an equilibrium for any choice of thediscount factor and the recognition probabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Britz Volker, 2010. "Optimal Value Commitment in Bilateral Bargaining," Research Memorandum 056, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
  • Handle: RePEc:unm:umamet:2010056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/portal/files/1494535/content
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Antoni Cunyat, 2004. "The optimal degree of commitment in a negotiation with a deadline," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 23(2), pages 455-465, January.
    3. Kambe, Shinsuke, 1999. "Bargaining with Imperfect Commitment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 217-237, August.
    4. Fershtman Chaim & Seidmann Daniel J., 1993. "Deadline Effects and Inefficient Delay in Bargaining with Endogenous Commitment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 306-321, August.
    5. Dilip Abreu & Faruk Gul, 2000. "Bargaining and Reputation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 85-118, January.
    6. Vicent Calabuig & Antoni Cunyat & Gonzalo Olcina, 2002. "Commitment and choice of partner in a negotiation with a deadline," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 61-78.
    7. Muthoo, Abhinay, 1992. "Revocable Commitment and Sequential Bargaining," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(411), pages 378-387, March.
    8. Li, Duozhe, 2007. "Bargaining with history-dependent preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 695-708, September.
    9. Shaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1984. "Involuntary Unemployment as a Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(6), pages 1351-1364, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    microeconomics ;

    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:unm:umamet:2010056. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Leonne Portz). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/meteonl.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.