UNION–FIRM BARGAINING AGENDA REVISITED: WHEN UNIONS HAVE DISTINCT PREFERENCES

In this paper we revisit the issue of the scope of bargaining between firms and unions by considering a more general union's utility function with distinct preferences and sequential negotiations. First, we compare exogenously given labour market institutions; i.e., right‐to‐manage (RTM) and sequential efficient bargaining (SEB). We show that the conventional wisdom, which states that firms always prefer RTM, no longer holds. In fact, when unions are adequately wage aggressive and have strong enough bargaining power, firms may prefer SEB negotiations; however, firms switch their preference to RTM when unions are very strong. Moreover, we show that a conflict of interest between the parties may emerge when unions are sufficiently employment oriented as well as sufficiently wage aggressive and not too strong or too weak in bargaining. Second, we analyse the endogenous choice of the bargaining agenda. We show that a rich plethora of equilibria may occur and new situations of conflict/agreement of interests between the bargaining parties arise in particular when unions are sufficiently wage‐aggressive.     

Strategic step-by-step negotiation

We analyze a specific type of negotiation process where parties proceed in stages taking into consideration that negotiation may end prematurely with an inefficient agreement. Parties negotiate only one increasing pie, thereby avoiding inefficiencies which are typical for issue-by-issue negotiations. For ann-stage game, we prove the existence of a unique subgame-perfect equilibrium. We then show that step-by-step negotiation can only improve players' expected payoffs if negotiation in stages reduces the difference between their equilibrium offers. For this to occur, however, the risk of negotiation must be affected by the agenda of the bargaining problem.     

Fooling All of the People Some of the Time: A Theory of Endogenous Sequencing in Confidential Negotiations

We analyse a bargaining game in which one party, called the buyer, has the option of choosing the sequence of negotiations with other participants, called sellers. When the sequencing of negotiations is confidential and the sellers' goods are highly complementary, efficient, non-dissipative equilibria exist in which the buyer randomizes over negotiation sequences. In these equilibria, the buyer can obtain higher pay-offs than in pure strategy equilibria or in public negotiations. The degree of sequencing uncertainty that maximizes buyer pay-offs is inversely related to the aggregate bargaining power of the sellers.     

Timing of endogenous bargaining over costs and firms’ locations

This work analyzes a duopoly in which firms choose their locations and then bargain over wages with their unions. The timing of the bargaining process is endogeously determined. We obtain that bargaining is simultaneous if and only if both firms decide when negotiations take place. Otherwise negotiation takes place sequentially. Under simultaneous or sequential negotiations, the market is equally shared and both firms have the same price-cost margins and profits. When bargaining is sequential firms have higher profits, the leader locates closer to the market than in the simultaneous case, the follower locates further away and the distance between the two firms is greater.      

ON THE NEUTRALITY OF COALITION FORMATION IN A PURE BARGAINING PROBLEM*

We consider the sequential bargaining game à la Stahl–Binmore–Rubinstein with random proposers, juxtaposing an ex ante coalition formation stage to their bargaining game. On the basis of the expected outcomes in the negotiation over how to split a dollar, players can form coalitions in a sequential manner, within each of which they can redistribute their payoffs. It turns out that the grand coalition does form, and that each player receives his discounted expected payoff, which is obtained by playing as a single player in the negotiation, although there could be many equilibria in the bargaining stage.     

“将心比心”能促进双赢吗?——换位思考在买卖谈判中的作用

本文通过模拟谈判的方式发现，在买卖谈判中，谈判者的换位思考能够促进双赢，并提高关系的质量。并且，在谈判中不同的角色也会影响到换位思考，卖方比买方有着更多的换位思考行为。最后，买方的换位思考比卖方更能影响谈判结果的整合程度。综合起来，该结果表明，在谈判中谈判者应尽量进行换位思考以提高整合性，买方尤其应注意这一点。     

Coase theorem, complexity and transaction costs

This paper, by introducing complexity considerations, provides a dynamic foundation for the Coase theorem and highlights the role of transaction costs in generating inefficient bargaining/negotiation outcomes. We show, when the players have a preference for less complex strategies, the Coase theorem holds in negotiation models with repeated surplus and endogenous disagreement payoffs if and only if there are no transaction costs. Specifically, complexity considerations select only efficient equilibria in these models without transaction costs while every equilibrium induces perpetual disagreement and inefficiency with transaction costs. We also show the latter is true in the Rubinstein bargaining model with transaction costs.     

Friday May Never be the Same Again: Some Results on Work Sharing from Union–Firm Bargaining Models

This paper analyses work–sharing in the union–firm bargaining context. In keeping with mechanisms observed in actual negotiations, we assume that the firm sets employment and we consider bargaining regimes with and without overtime. In models without overtime, work–sharing is consistent with union–firm bargaining provided that income–sharing occurs when the wage rises. In models with overtime, a Pareto–improving cut in the workweek requires wage concession, which is necessary, but not sufficient, for work–sharing. Our models are consistent with a number of well–established stylised facts. In particular, we explain why estimates of the actual hours–standard hours elasticity are always close to unity.     

The role of information in different bargaining protocols

We analyze a bargaining protocol recently proposed in the literature vis-à-vis unconstrained negotiation. This new mechanism extracts “gains from trade” inherent in the differing valuation of two parties towards various issues where conflict exists. We assess the role of incomplete vs. complete information in the efficiency achieved by this new mechanism and by unconstrained negotiation. We find that unconstrained negotiation does best under a situation of complete information where the valuations of both bargaining parties are common knowledge. Instead, the newly proposed mechanism does best in a situation with incomplete information. The sources of inefficiencies in each of the two cases arise from the different strategic use of the available information.     

The Efficiency of Direct Public Involvement in Environmental Policymaking: An Experimental Test

In collaborative negotiation, stakeholder representatives are charged with the development of a mutually acceptable set of public policies. Although this approach has become popular in environmental negotiations, little is known about the characteristics of the outcomes that are reached. In this paper, we employ an Edgeworth box framework to investigate the nature of bargaining over public goods (environmental policies) that have multiple attributes. We then design and conduct laboratory experiments within this framework to test whether negotiated outcomes satisfy standard axiomatic bargaining predictions under a variety of conditions. Specifically, we test whether two parties with Pareto inefficient endowments of two goods will trade to Pareto improving and Pareto efficient outcomes, and to the Nash bargain in particular. We vary whether the Nash bargain coincides with or diverges from the outcome that maximizes the joint payoff, or the outcome that equalizes payoffs, and whether subjects are provided full or partial information. We find that bargainers reach Pareto improving and efficient outcomes across treatments, but withdraw support for the Nash bargain when it generates unequal payments or when payoff information is private. We conclude that this experimental framework offers a promising method for studying multi-attribute negotiations.     

Does resorting to online dispute resolution promote agreements? Experimental evidence

This paper presents an experiment performed to test the properties of an innovative bargaining mechanism (called automated negotiation) used to resolve disputes arising from Internet-based transactions. The main result shows that the settlement rule tends to chill bargaining as it creates incentives for individuals to misrepresent their true valuations, which implies that automated negotiation is not able to promote agreements. However, this perverse effect depends strongly on the conflict situation. When the threat that a disagreement occurs is more credible, the strategic effect is reduced since defendants are more interested in maximizing the efficiency of a settlement than their own expected profit. The implications of these results are then used to discuss the potential role of public regulation and reputation mechanisms in Cyberspace.     

BUYERS,SELLERS, AND MIDDLEMEN: VARIATIONS ON SEARCH‐THEORETIC THEMES

We study exchange that is bilateral but indirect—it involves chains of intermediaries, or middlemen—in markets with frictions. These frictions include search and bargaining problems. We show how, and how many, intermediaries might get involved in a chain, and how bargaining with one depends on upcoming negotiations with those downstream. The roles of buyers, sellers, money, and prices are discussed, allowing us to clarify some neglected connections between different branches of search theory. Pursuing one such connection, with monetary economics, we show how bubbles can emerge in intermediation, even with fully rational agents and perfect foresight.     

垄断性资源定价、竞合博弈与序贯决策——以铁矿为例

文章依据铁矿石价格谈判的背景和原则,构建了供应链上游资源垄断者和下游两生产企业之间竞争及竞合的两个博弈定价模型。研究表明,供应链上游资源垄断者主要依据下游生产企业的利润水平确定其资源定价,影响下游议价能力的根本因素是其产量而非谈判技巧,竞合策略下价格谈判的先行者将获得更大的产量和利润优势。算例仿真结果则显示,与竞争策略相比,合作谈判策略能有效提高供应链下游生产企业的议价能力,降低上游垄断者的资源定价能力,有效缩减整体谈判成本。     

Duration and competing-risks determinants of terrorist hostage-taking incidents

This paper applies survival analysis to ascertain the key empirical determinants of the duration of terrorist hostage-taking incidents during 1978–2018. Our theoretical hypotheses are primarily based on John Cross’s bargaining model where negotiation duration depends on initial negotiation spread, bargaining costs, and perceived uncertainty. For hostage events, greater initial demands of the terrorists increase incident length by augmenting the negotiation spread. Sequential release of hostages, demanding the release of imprisoned comrades, changing demands during negotiations, capturing of protected persons, and engaging in kidnappings lengthen hostage incidents by affecting bargaining costs and perceived uncertainty. The number of nonterrorists wounded and the heterogeneity of the hostage-taking squad generally reduce incident length. Based on a competing-risk analysis, we identify factors, consistent with Nash bargaining, affecting three alternative outcomes for hostage incidents.     

Valuations and dynamics of negotiations

This paper analyzes three‐party negotiations in the presence of externalities. We obtain a closed‐form solution for the Markov perfect equilibrium of a multilateral non‐cooperative bargaining model, yielding an equilibrium value and dynamics of negotiations that are supported by experimental studies. Players’ values are monotonically increasing (or decreasing) in the amount of negative (or positive) externalities that they impose on others. Moreover, players’ values are continuous and piecewise linear on the worth of bilateral coalitions, and are inextricably related to their negotiation strategies: the equilibrium value is the Nash bargaining solution when no bilateral coalitions form; the Shapley value when all bilateral coalitions form; or the nucleolus, when either one bilateral coalition among “natural partners” or two bilateral coalitions including a “pivotal player” form.     

Regulation through Collaboration: Final Authority and Information Symmetry in Environmental Coasean Bargaining

Many people see collaborative decision-making as the next wave in environmental regulation. This paper examines how two elements within collaborative processes—final authority over stakeholder negotiations and information symmetry through mandated information sharing of relative payoffs—affect the efficiency and the distribution of wealth. Using a Coasean bargaining experiment, we find final authority for stakeholders is critical for efficient negotiations. Efficiency drops by two-thirds given a 10% risk to the final authority given symmetric information. Efficiency declines further once asymmetric information is considered. Final authority appears to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for efficient agreements.     

Wage bargaining and employment revisited: separability and efficiency in collective bargaining*

We analyse the two-dimensional Nash bargaining solution (NBS) by deploying the standard labour market negotiations model of McDonald and Solow. We show that the two-dimensional bargaining problem can be decomposed into two one-dimensional problems, such that the two solutions together replicate the solution of the two-dimensional problem if the NBS is applied. The axiom of “independence of irrelevant alternatives” is shown to be crucial for this type of decomposability. This result has significant implications for actual negotiations because it allows for the decomposition of a multi-dimensional bargaining problem into one-dimensional problems – and thus helps to facilitate real-world negotiations.     

An analysis of bargaining power for milk cooperatives and milk processors in Florida

The Florida dairy market has a few fluid milk processors and many dairy farmers. The dairy farmers are represented in negotiation with the processors by a cooperative. This research builds a theoretical model of bargaining between the processors and a cooperative. The model is applied to the Florida dairy market to examine price negotiations between Florida milk processors and a dairy cooperative. An expectation maximization (EM) algorithm along with maximum likelihood estimation is used to estimate the econometric disequilibrium model with time series data for the period of October 1998 to May 2009. The results show that the class I price set by the Federal Milk Marketing Order is the major factor influencing the cooperative’s supply reservation price. Negotiated quantity and production seasonality affect the processors’ demand reservation price. The processors appear to be more patient and have higher average bargaining power (0.8804) than the cooperative (0.1196). The highest (lowest) bargaining power for the cooperative (processors) occurred in 2008 and the lowest (highest) bargaining power for the cooperative (processors) occurred in 2001.     

Pattern Bargaining*

Many unions in the United States have for several years engaged in what is known as pattern bargaining. In this article, we show that pattern bargaining is preferred by a union to both simultaneous industry‐wide negotiations and sequential negotiations without a pattern. Allowing for interfirm productivity differentials within an industry, we show that for small differentials, the union most prefers a pattern in wages, but for a sufficiently wide differential, the union prefers a pattern in labor costs. Finally, we demonstrate that pattern bargaining can be a significant entry deterrent. This provides an explanation for why incumbent firms in an industry may support the use of pattern bargaining in labor negotiations.     

R&D INVESTMENTS AND SEQUENTIAL WAGE NEGOTIATIONS*

This paper analyses how the structure of wage bargaining affects R&D investment by firms that increases the productivity of labour in a Cournot duopoly. We find that total expenditure on R&D is greater when wages are set simultaneously than when they are set sequentially. Thus sequential wage negotiations reduce the incentive for firms to innovate and affect the productivity of labour. When wage negotiations are sequential the productivity of labour is greater (lower) in the follower (leader) firm than when negotiations are simultaneous. We also obtain that for same parameter values it is possible for the firm with the lower productivity to end up paying a higher wage than the firm with the higher level of labour productivity.