IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpga/0110004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bargaining with an Agenda

Author

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

Abstract

We propose a new framework for bargaining in which the process follows an agenda. The agenda is represented by a family, parameterized by time, of increasing sets of joint utilities for possible agreements. This is in contrast to the single set used in the standard framework. The set at each time involves all possible agreements on the issues discussed up to that time. A \emph{bargaining solution} for an agenda specifies a path of agreements, one for each time. We characterize axiomatically a solution that is ordinal, meaning that it is covariant with order- preserving transformations of the utility representations. It can be viewed as the limit of a step-by-step bargaining process in which the agreement point 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, and the ordinal solution will still emerge as the steps tend to zero. Shapley showed that ordinal solutions exist for the standard framework for three players but not for two; the present framework generates an ordinal solution for any number of bargainers, in particular for two.

Suggested Citation

  • Barry O'Neill & Dov Samet & Zvi Wiener & Eyal Winter, 2001. "Bargaining with an Agenda," Game Theory and Information 0110004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpga:0110004
    Note: Type of Document - ; pages: 19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/game/papers/0110/0110004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    2. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Lin Zhou, 1997. "The Nash Bargaining Theory with Non-Convex Problems," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 681-686, May.
    5. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Sprumont, Yves, 1998. "Ordinal Cost Sharing," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 126-162, July.
    9. Leonard J. Mirman & Yair Tauman, 1982. "Demand Compatible Equitable Cost Sharing Prices," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 40-56, February.
    10. Fershtman, Chaim, 1990. "The importance of the agenda in bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 224-238, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Daniel J. Seidmann & Eyal Winter, 1998. "A Theory of Gradual Coalition Formation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 793-815.
    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. 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.
    2. Meir, Reshef & Kalai, Gil & Tennenholtz, Moshe, 2018. "Bidding games and efficient allocations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 166-193.
    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. 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.
    6. Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2013. "A non-cooperative approach to the ordinal Shapley rule," MPRA Paper 43790, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Lombardi, Michele & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2010. "Alternative characterizations of the proportional solution for nonconvex bargaining problems with claims," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 229-232, August.
    10. Joan Esteban & József Sákovics, 2002. "Endogenous bargaining power," Economics Working Papers 644, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    11. Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2019. "Stagnation proofness in n-agent bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 14(1), pages 215-224, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Roberto Serrano, 2007. "Bargaining," Working Papers 2007-06, Instituto Madrileño de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
    14. 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.
    15. Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2013. "Cooperative bargaining: Independence and monotonicity imply disagreement," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 240-242.
    16. Julian J. Arevalo, 2005. "Gradual Nash Bargaining with Endogenous Agenda: A Path-Dependent Model," Game Theory and Information 0502004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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).
    20. Anbarci, Nejat & Sun, Ching-jen, 2013. "Robustness of intermediate agreements and bargaining solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 367-376.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bargaining; ordinal utility;

    JEL classification:

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

    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:wpa:wuwpga:0110004. 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.