IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/the/publsh/1865.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiation across multiple issues

Author

Listed:
  • Gayer, Gabrielle

    (Department of Economics, Bar Ilan University)

  • Persitz, Dotan

    (Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration, Tel Aviv University)

Abstract

In the present work, agreement on allocation of payments from multiple issues requires unanimous consent of all parties involved. The agents are assumed to know the aggregate payoffs but do not know their decomposition by issues. This framework applies to many real-world problems, such as the formation of joint ventures. We present a novel solution concept to the problem, termed the multi-core, wherein an agent consents to participate in the grand coalition if she can envision a decomposition of the proposed allocation for which each coalition to which she belongs derives greater benefit on each issue by cooperating with the grand coalition rather than operating alone. An allocation is in the multi-core if all agents consent to participate in the grand coalition. We provide a theorem characterizing the non-emptiness of the multi-core and show that the multi-core generalizes the core. We prove that the approach of the multi-core has the potential to increase cooperation among parties beyond that of solving issues independently. In addition, we establish that the multi-core wherein agents take into account the specifics of the original issues is a refinement of the core of the sum of individual issues in which such information is ignored.

Suggested Citation

  • Gayer, Gabrielle & Persitz, Dotan, 2016. "Negotiation across multiple issues," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(3), September.
    • Handle: RePEc:the:publsh:1865
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20160937/16176/479
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    2. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1007-1028, July.
    3. Effrosyni Diamantoudi & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo & Licun Xue, 2015. "Sharing the surplus in games with externalities within and across issues," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 60(2), pages 315-343, October.
    4. Dragan, I. & Potters, J.A.M. & Tijs, S.H., 1989. "Superadditivity for solutions of coalitional games," Other publications TiSEM 283e2594-e3a0-418d-ae5e-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. F. R. Fernández & M. A. Hinojosa & J. Puerto, 2002. "Core Solutions in Vector-Valued Games," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 331-360, February.
    6. Yan-An Hwang & Yu-Hsien Liao, 2011. "The multi-core, balancedness and axiomatizations for multi-choice games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(4), pages 677-689, November.
    7. Heinrich H. Nax, 2014. "A Note on the Core of TU-cooperative Games with Multiple Membership Externalities," Games, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-13, October.
    8. Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-1050, July.
    9. Clara Ponsati & Joel Watson, 1998. "Multiple-Issue Bargaining and Axiomatic Solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 26(4), pages 501-524.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sokolov, Denis, 2022. "Shapley value for TU-games with multiple memberships and externalities," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 76-90.
    2. Lehrer, Ehud & Teper, Roee, 2020. "Allocation in multi-agenda disputes: A set-valued games approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 440-452.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Radzvilas, Mantas, 2016. "Hypothetical Bargaining and the Equilibrium Selection Problem in Non-Cooperative Games," MPRA Paper 70248, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Vincent J. Vannetelbosch & P. Jean-Jacques Herings, 2000. "The equivalence of the Dekel-Fudenberg iterative procedure and weakly perfect rationalizability," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 15(3), pages 677-687.
    3. Ambrus, Attila, 2006. "Coalitional Rationalizability," Scholarly Articles 3200266, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    4. Pei, Ting & Takahashi, Satoru, 2019. "Rationalizable strategies in random games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 110-125.
    5. Lawrence Christiano & Husnu Dalgic & Xiaoming Li, 2022. "Modelling the Great Recession as a Bank Panic: Challenges," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(S1), pages 200-238, June.
    6. Asheim, G.B. & Dufwenberg, M., 1996. "Admissibility and Common Knowledge," Discussion Paper 1996-16, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    7. Gilles Grandjean & Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2017. "Strongly rational sets for normal-form games," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 5(1), pages 35-46, April.
    8. Jara-Moroni, Pedro, 2018. "Rationalizability and mixed strategies in large games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 153-156.
    9. Choo, Lawrence C.Y & Kaplan, Todd R., 2014. "Explaining Behavior in the "11-20" Game," MPRA Paper 52808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Amanda Friedenberg & H. Jerome Keisler, 2021. "Iterated dominance revisited," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(2), pages 377-421, September.
    11. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Kuzmics, Christoph, 2013. "Hidden symmetries and focal points," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 226-258.
    12. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 2001. "Ten Little Treasures of Game Theory and Ten Intuitive Contradictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1402-1422, December.
    13. Asheim, Geir B. & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2003. "Admissibility and common belief," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 208-234, February.
    14. Fabrizio Germano & Peio Zuazo-Garin, 2017. "Bounded rationality and correlated equilibria," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(3), pages 595-629, August.
    15. Abhijit Banerjee & Jörgen W. Weibull & Ken Binmore, 1996. "Evolution and Rationality: Some Recent Game-Theoretic Results," International Economic Association Series, in: Beth Allen (ed.), Economics in a Changing World, chapter 4, pages 90-117, Palgrave Macmillan.
    16. Bossert, Walter & Peters, Hans, 2000. "Multi-attribute decision-making in individual and social choice," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 327-339, November.
    17. Banks, Jeffrey S. & Duggan, John & Le Breton, Michel, 2002. "Bounds for Mixed Strategy Equilibria and the Spatial Model of Elections," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 88-105, March.
    18. Seel, Christian & Tsakas, Elias, 2017. "Rationalizability and Nash equilibria in guessing games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 75-88.
    19. Isogai, Shigeki & Shen, Chaohai, 2023. "Multiproduct firm’s reputation and leniency program in multimarket collusion," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    20. P. Jean-Jacques Herings & Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2023. "Social Rationalizability with Mediation," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 440-461, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cooperative games; issue linkage; multi-issue bargaining; multi-core;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:the:publsh:1865. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Martin J. Osborne (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://econtheory.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.