Trading bargaining weights

We consider a model, in which two agents are engaged in two separate bargaining problems. We introduce a notion of bargaining weights (bargaining power), which is basically given by asymmetric versions of the Perles–Maschler bargaining solution. Thereby, we view bargaining power as ordinary goods that can be traded in an exchange economy. With equal initial endowment of bargaining power there exists a Walrasian equilibrium in this exchange economy such that the utility allocation in equilibrium coincides with the Perles–Maschler bargaining solution of the aggregate bargaining problem. Equilibrium prices are given by the primitives of the two bargaining problems.     

The <Emphasis Type="Italic">n</Emphasis>-person Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution under pre-donations

This study examines the behavior of simple n-person bargaining problems under pre-donations where the Kalai-Smorodinsky (KS) solution is operant. Pre- donations are a unilateral commitment to transfer a portion of one’s utility to someone else, and are used to distort the bargaining set and thereby influence the bargaining solution. In equilibrium, these pre-donations are Pareto-improving over the undistorted solution; moreover, when the agents’ preferences are sufficiently distinct, the equilibrium solution coincides with the concessionary division rule.     

Trading bargaining weights

We consider a model, in which two agents are engaged in two separate bargaining problems. We introduce a notion of bargaining weights (bargaining power), which is basically given by asymmetric versions of the Perles–Maschler bargaining solution. Thereby, we view bargaining power as ordinary goods that can be traded in an exchange economy. With equal initial endowment of bargaining power there exists a Walrasian equilibrium in this exchange economy such that the utility allocation in equilibrium coincides with the Perles–Maschler bargaining solution of the aggregate bargaining problem. Equilibrium prices are given by the primitives of the two bargaining problems.     

Multi-agent bilateral bargaining and the Nash bargaining solution

This paper studies a bargaining model where n   players negotiate how to share a pie through (n−1)$(n-1)$ bilateral bargaining sessions. In each session, two players bargain for a partial agreement that specifies who exits and who moves on to the next session (if there is any) via the alternating-proposal framework of Rubinstein [Rubinstein, A., 1982. Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50, 97–109]. We consider two bargaining procedures under which the subgame perfect equilibrium outcomes converge to the Nash [Nash, J., 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18, 155–162] bargaining solution for the corresponding bargaining problem as the players’ discount factor goes to one. Hence, the model studied here provides a non-cooperative foundation for the Nash cooperative bargaining solution in the multilateral case.     

Wage versus efficient bargaining in oligopoly

This paper combines internal bargaining between firms and their employees with a situation of imperfect competition, in particular a Cournot‐oligopoly. Wage bargaining is compared with simultaneous negotiations on wages and employment (efficient bargaining). It turns out that for a large range of parameter values a prisoner's dilemma concerning profits exists. The dominant strategy is efficient bargaining, while the joint profits are maximized with wage negotiations. A simplified example considers economic welfare and utility of the unions. Different welfare measures are considered like the usual IO measure of consumer and producer surplus as well as others. The term ‘efficient bargaining’ is not justified (at least for the present example) if the profits and the rents of the unions are considered, as these are maximized with wage bargaining. However, consumer and producer surplus are highest with efficient bargaining. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Allocating additional resources to public universities. A DEA bargaining approach

This paper deals with the problem of allocating additional resources in a public university system. Instead of a solution imposed from above, the proposed bargaining approach lets the universities voluntarily agree on a solution that benefits them all. To be realistic the allocation assumes that the universities will keep their current technical efficiency. A bargaining problem is formulated, defining the corresponding feasible set and disagreement point. Four different bargaining solutions, namely Nash, Kalai-Smorodinsky, Egalitarian and Utilitarian, are considered and discussed. The proposed approach is applied to a real-world dataset involving the nine public universities of the Andalusian region. The results of the different bargaining solutions are very consistent as regards the output and utility improvements to be achieved by each university.     

Bargaining power in stationary parallelogram games

A stationary variant of the repeated prisoners dilemma in which the game frontier is a parallelogram is analyzed. By using the probabilistic cheap talk concept of [3], the discount factor becomes fungible, and for a critical value of the discount factor a unique Pareto-optimal and Pareto-dominant solution can be found. The relative bargaining power of the players can be quantified in terms of the shape of the parallelogram. If the parallelogram is asymmetric, the solution results in an asymmetric allocation of payoffs. Players with more bargaining power receive a greater share of the allocation. The solution satisfies some standard bargaining axioms within the class of parallelogram games. A characterization is provided in terms of these axioms and one new axiom, weak-monotonicity, which is in the spirit of, but different from, the Kalai-Smorodinsky restricted-monotonicity axiom.Received: 15 January 2001, Accepted: 4 December 2003, We thank Wayne Shafer for interlocution and helpful comments.     

Recursive Nash bargaining over a productive asset

We propose an equilibrium concept (the recursive Nash bargaining solution) that describes the outcome of repeated negotiations between two rational agents under the assumptions that the state of the economic system under consideration changes according to the actions of the players and that neither party can make binding commitments to future behavior. This equilibrium is dynamically consistent but typically not Pareto-efficient. As an application, we compute the recursive Nash bargaining solution in a model of two heterogeneous agents bargaining over the use of a productive asset with constant gross rate of return and study how the time-preference rates and the elasticities of substitution affect the solution.     

Implementing the nash extension bargaining solution for non-convex problems

Conley and Wilkie (1993) introduced an axiomatization at the Nash extension bargaining solution defined on a domain of comprehensive but not necessarily convex problems. In this paper we present a non-cooperative game which implements the Nash extension solution in subgame perfect equilibria in the limit as the discount rate applied between rounds of play vanishes.     

Coalition formation in general NTU games

A general nontransferable utility (NTU) game is interpreted as a collection of pure bargaining games that can be played by individual coalitions. The threatpoints or claims points respectively, in these pure bargaining games reflect the players' opportunities outside a given coalition. We develop a solution concept for general NTU games that is consistent in the sense that the players' outside opportunities are determined by the solution to a suitably defined reduced game. For any general NTU game the solution predicts which coalitions are formed and how the payoffs are distributed among the players.     

Threats and bargaining in capitalism a differential game view

The paper examines the Nash bargaining equilibrium in a simple model of growth and distribution formulated as a differential game between workers, who may save or consume, and capitalists, who may consume or invest. Optimal threats announced by the social classes to affect the negotiated solution to their own advantage are also derived. It is demonstrated that the workers' threat takes the form of refusing to save while capitalists threaten to refrain from investing. The threats as well as the possible gains from cooperation determine the players' relative importance or bargaining power. It is shown that capitalists are in general in a stronger bargaining position than workers. The dependence of the bargaining power on the parameters of the model is examined.     

A bargaining set for roommate problems

Since stable matchings may not exist, we propose a weaker notion of stability based on the credibility of blocking pairs. We adopt the weak stability notion of Klijn and Massó (2003) for the marriage problem and we extend it to the roommate problem. We first show that although stable matchings may not exist, a weakly stable matching always exists in a roommate problem. Then, we adopt a solution concept based on the credibility of the deviations for the roommate problem: the bargaining set. We show that weak stability is not sufficient for a matching to be in the bargaining set. We generalize the coincidence result for marriage problems of Klijn and Massó (2003) between the bargaining set and the set of weakly stable and weakly efficient matchings to roommate problems. Finally, we prove that the bargaining set for roommate problems is always non-empty by making use of the coincidence result.     

Iterated Kalai–Smorodinsky–Nash compromise

In this paper, we introduce a new two-person bargaining solution, which we call iterated Kalai–Smorodinsky–Nash compromise (IKSNC). For its characterization, we present an axiom called \(\varGamma \)-Decomposability which is satisfied by any solution that is decomposable with respect to a given reference solution \(\varGamma \). We show that the IKSNC solution is uniquely characterized by \(\varGamma \)-Decomposability whenever \(\varGamma \) satisfies the standard axioms of Independence of Equivalent Utility Representations and Symmetry, along with three additional axioms, namely Restricted Monotonicity of Individually Best Extensions, Weak Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives, and Weak Pareto Optimality under Symmetry.     

Bargaining with independence of higher or irrelevant claims

This paper studies independence of higher claims and independence of irrelevant claims on the domain of bargaining problems with claims. Independence of higher claims requires that the payoff of an agent does not depend on the higher claim of another agent. Independence of irrelevant claims states that the payoffs should not change when the claims decrease but remain higher than the payoffs. Interestingly, in conjunction with standard axioms from bargaining theory, these properties characterize a new constrained Nash solution, a constrained Kalai–Smorodinsky solution, and a constrained Kalai solution.     

A noncooperative foundation of the asymmetric Nash bargaining solution

We consider a noncooperative multilateral bargaining model with heterogeneous time preferences in which the first rejector of a proposal in the current round becomes the proposer in the next round. We show the existence of a stationary subgame perfect equilibrium (SSPE), characterize SSPEs and show the efficiency of SSPEs. We show that any sequence of SSPE payoff profiles converges to the asymmetric Nash bargaining solution weighted by the inverses of discount rates as the bargaining friction vanishes.     

On Maskin monotonicity of solution based social choice rules

Howard (J Econ Theory 56:142–159, 1992) argues that the Nash bargaining solution is not Nash implementable, as it does not satisfy Maskin monotonicity. His arguments can be extended to other bargaining solutions as well. However, by defining a social choice correspondence that is based on the solution rather than on its realizations, one can overcome this shortcoming. We even show that such correspondences satisfy a stronger version of monotonicity that is even sufficient for Nash implementability.     

An exact non-cooperative support for the sequential Raiffa solution

This article provides an exact non-cooperative foundation of the sequential Raiffa solution for two-person bargaining games. Based on an approximate foundation due to Myerson (1991) for any two-person bargaining game (S, d) an extensive form game G^S,d is defined that has an infinity of weakly subgame perfect equilibria whose payoff vectors coincide with that of the sequential Raiffa solution of (S, d). Moreover all those equilibria share the same equilibrium path consisting of proposing the Raiffa solution and accepting it in the first stage of the game.By a modification of G^S,d the analogous result is provided for subgame perfect equilibria. These results immediately extend to implementation of a sequential Raiffa (solution based) social choice rule in subgame perfect equilibrium.     

COALITION FORMATION AND BARGAINING PROTOCOLS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This paper offers a review of the vast literature regarding bargaining and coalition formation. This topic has been generally described as the attempt to provide strategic foundations to cooperative solution concepts. It can therefore be seen as the linking ring between the non‐cooperative and the cooperative game‐theoretic approach to coalition formation. Its central role in economic theory and its relatively long history that goes back to the Nash program have fostered a large academic production, including surveys. Nonetheless, this paper will focus on an aspect that is often neglected in the dedicated surveys: the specificities of the bargaining protocols leading to different outcomes. Although generally downgraded to the rank of details, the differences in bargaining protocols, even when minor, can cause significant changes in fundamental aspects such as the possibility to reach full cooperation, the distribution of final pay‐offs and the time taken to reach an agreement. Focused on externalities‐free games, therefore on bargaining protocols sustaining solution concepts for cooperative games in characteristic function form, the paper aims at providing a brief but exhaustive review of the topic that could result in a very useful tool for any researcher approaching the subject of coalitional bargaining.     

Mediation and the Nash bargaining solution

This paper analyzes a model of bargaining in which two parties use a mediator who sequentially makes random proposals until agreement by both parties is reached. I show that as the cost of delay shrinks to zero, the subgame perfect payoff converges to the asymmetric Nash bargaining solution with weights determined by the relative discount rates of the players. I also establish conditions for the uniqueness of the subgame perfect equilibrium for arbitrary discount rates.     

Two concepts of monotonicity in two-person bargaining theory

Monotonicity has been suggested as a principle of fairness and a principle of bargaining. It has been proposed as a substitute to the “independence of irrelevant alternatives” axiom in bargaining solutions and thus applied to the determination of wages and employment. In this paper we will discuss the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution and show that it does not correspond to the monotonicity notion which follows from the “principle of bargaining” idea.