Lost in Translation? Basis Utility and Proportionality in Games
Cooperative and noncooperative games have no representation of players's basis utilities. Basis utility is the natural reference point on a player's utility scale that enables the determination the marginal utility of any payoff or allocation. A player's basis utility can be determined by an observer and other players under standard rationality assumptions. Basis utility allows interpersonal comparison of proportional utility gains relative to the disagreement outcome. Proportional pure bargaining is the unique solution satisfying efficiency, symmetry, affine transformation invariance and monotonicity in pure bargaining games with basis utility. Characterization of the Nash (1950) bargaining solution requires the assumption of the irrelevance of basis utility in games with basis utility. All existing cooperative solution functions become translation invariant once proper account is taken of basis utility. The noncooperative rationality of these results is demonstrated with a proportional bargaining based on Gul (1988). Further noncooperative application is demonstrated by showing that quantal response equilibria with multiplicative error structures (Goeree, Holt and Palfrey (2004)) become translation invariant with specification of basis utility.
|Date of creation:||02 Jul 2005|
|Date of revision:||06 Jul 2005|
|Note:||Type of Document - pdf; pages: 25|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://188.8.131.52 |
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- S. Huck & J. Oechssler, 1996.
"The Indirect Evolutionary Approach To Explaining Fair Allocations,"
SFB 373 Discussion Papers
1996,13, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
- Huck, Steffen & Oechssler, Jorg, 1999. "The Indirect Evolutionary Approach to Explaining Fair Allocations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 13-24, July.
- Steffen Huck & Joerg Oechssler, 1995. "The Indirect Evolutionary Approach to Explaining Fair Allocations," Game Theory and Information 9507001, EconWPA, revised 27 Aug 1998.
- Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
- Sergiu Hart & Andreu Mas-Colell, 1994.
"Bargaining and value,"
Economics Working Papers
114, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Feb 1995.
- Roth, Alvin E, 1979. "Proportional Solutions to the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 775-77, May.
- Giuseppe Lopomo & Efe A. Ok, 1998.
"Bargaining, Interdependence, and the Rationality of Fair Division,"
98-13, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
- Lopomo, Giuseppe & Ok, Efe A, 2001. "Bargaining, Interdependence, and the Rationality of Fair Division," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(2), pages 263-83, Summer.
- Giuseppe Lopomo & Efe A Ok, 2001. "Bargaining, Interdependence and the Rationality of Fair Division," Levine's Working Paper Archive 563824000000000114, David K. Levine.
- Giuseppe Lopomo & Efe A Ok, 2004. "Bargaining, Interdependence and the Rationality of Fair Division," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000395, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Barry O'Neill, 1980. "A Problem of Rights Arbitration from the Talmud," Discussion Papers 445, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Ehud Kalai, 1977.
"Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons,"
179, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-30, October.
- Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
- Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer.
- McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpga:0507001. 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: (EconWPA)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.