Multilateral Bargaining for Resource Division
نویسندگان
چکیده
We address the problem of how a group of agents can decide to share a resource, represented as a unit-sized pie. We investigate a finite horizon non-cooperative bargaining game, in which the players take it in turns to make proposals on how the resource should be allocated, and the other players vote on whether or not to accept the allocation. Voting is modelled as a Bayesian weighted voting game with uncertainty about the players’ weights. The agenda, (i.e., the order in which the players are called to make offers), is defined exogenously. We focus on impatient players with heterogeneous discount factors. In the case of a conflict, (i.e., no agreement by the deadline), all the players get nothing. We provide a Bayesian subgame perfect equilibrium for the bargaining game and conduct an ex-ante analysis of the resulting outcome. We show that, the equilibrium is unique, computable in polynomial time, results in an instant Pareto optimal agreement, and, under certain conditions provides a foundation for the core of the Bayesian voting game. Our analysis also leads to insights on how an individual’s bargained share is influenced by his position on the agenda. Finally, we show that, if the conflict point of the bargaining game changes, then the problem of determining a non-cooperative equilibrium becomes NP-hard even under the perfect information assumption.
منابع مشابه
The Optimal Trade Bargaining Strategies in the Negotiation of DDA*
s: This paper examines the optimal trade negotiation strategies in the trade negotiation involving multi-parties such as Doha Development Agenda, which is characterized by asymmetric multiple negotiators with multi-trade issues. Due to the consensus rule, which is the formal decision making rule of WTO, bilateral bargaining formula is often taken simultaneously with the multilateral bargaining ...
متن کاملMultilateral Contracting with Externalities
This paper proposes a model for multilateral contracting, where contracts are written and renegotiated over time, and where contracts may impose externalities on other agents. Equilibria always exist and the equilibrium value function is linear and monotonically increasing on the contracts. If the grand coalition, or contracting among all agents, is inefficient we show that bargaining delays ar...
متن کاملDoes It Pay to Play? How Bargaining Shapes Donor Participation in the Funding of Environmental Protection∗
Multilateral funding for global environmental protection, such as biodiversity conservation, requires donor participation. When are donors willing to participate? We examine a game-theoretic model of multilateral funding for environmental projects in developing countries. Donors must first decide whether to participate in a multilateral institution. They do so in anticipation of a bargaining ou...
متن کاملMultilateral bargaining with concession costs
This paper presents a new non-cooperative approach to multilateral bargaining. We consider a demand game with the following additional ingredients: (i) there is an exogenous deadline, by which bargaining has to end; (ii) prior to the deadline, players may sequentially change their demands as often as they like; (iii) changing one’s demand is costly, and this cost increases as the deadline gets ...
متن کاملReject and renegotiate: the Shapley value in multilateral bargaining
This paper investigates three distinctive and intuitive renegotiation bargaining protocols that all yield the Shapley value as the unique subgame perfect equilibrium outcome. These protocols, built on the multi-bidding procedure of Pérez-Castrillo and Wettstein (2001), allow more freedom in multilateral bargaining where rejected players can further negotiate and form coalitions. The self-dualit...
متن کامل