Bargaining with nonanonymous disagreement: Monotonic rules
نویسندگان
چکیده
We analyze bargaining situations where the agents’ payoffs from disagreement depend on who among them breaks down the negotiations. We model such problems as a superset of the standard domain of Nash (1950). On our extended domain, we analyze the implications of two central properties which, on the Nash domain, are known to be incompatible: strong monotonicity (Kalai, 1977) and scale invariance (Nash, 1950). We first show that a class of monotone path rules uniquely satisfy strong monotonicity, scale invariance, weak Pareto optimality, and “continuity”. We also show that dropping scale invariance from this list characterizes the whole class of monotone path rules. We then introduce a symmetric monotone path rule that we call the Cardinal Egalitarian rule and show that it is weakly Pareto optimal, strongly monotonic, scale invariant, symmetric and that it is the only rule to satisfy these properties on a class of two-agent problems. JEL Classification numbers: C78, D74
منابع مشابه
Bargaining with nonanonymous disagreement: Decomposable rules
We analyze bargaining situations where the agents’ payoffs from disagreement depend on who among them breaks down the negotiations. We model such problems as a superset of the standard domain of Nash (1950). We first show that this domain extension creates a very large number of new rules. Particularly, decomposable rules (which are extensions of rules from the Nash domain) constitute a nowhere...
متن کاملRelative Disagreement-Point Monotonicity of Bargaining Solutions
Prominent bargaining solutions are disagreement-point monotonic. These solutions’ disagreement-point monotonicity ranking, on the other hand, is impossible to establish. In a large class of bargaining problems, however, a ranking of the relative disagreement-point monotonicity of these prominent bargaining solutions can be obtained. Using the ‘Constant Elasticity of Substitution’ class of barga...
متن کاملBargaining versus Fighting*
I examine the determinants of conict and settlement by embedding probabilistic contests in a bargaining framework. Di¤erent costly enforcement e¤orts (e.g., arming, litigation expenditures) induce di¤erent disagreement points and Pareto frontiers. After examining the incentives for settlement, I demonstrate how di¤erent division rules and bargaining norms have real, economic e¤ects. I then ana...
متن کاملAxiomatic approaches to coalitional bargaining
The simplest bargaining situation is that of two persons who have to agree on the choice of an outcome from a given set offeasible outcomes; in case no agreement is reached, a specified disagreement outcome results. This two-personpure bargaining problem has been extensively analyzed, starting with Nash (1950). When there are more than two participants, the n-person straightforward generalizati...
متن کاملSubgame-perfect implementation of bargaining solutions
February 1997 Final Version: October 15, 2001 This paper provides simple four-stage game forms that fully implement a large class of two-person bargaining solutions in subgame-perfect equilibrium. The solutions that can be implemented by our game forms are those that maximize a monotonic and quasi-concave function of utilities after normalizing each agent's utility function so that the maximum ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Games and Economic Behavior
دوره 68 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2010