IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v61y1967i03p642-656_20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bargaining in a Three-Person Game

Author

Listed:
  • Riker, William H.

Abstract

Games are paradigms of many political events, especially those that involve partial or complete conflicts of interest among the participants. As paradigms, they display in relatively simple social interaction the same fundamental forces found in the more complex interactions of the grander political events whose structure they share. This is the feature of games that makes them attractive vehicles for both theorizing and experimentation in the social sciences. The scientific expectation is that, by studying the quasi-political interaction of games—where the variations among institutional, psychological, and ideological components of behavior are minimized—one will be able to understand more profoundly the basic political activities of bargaining, forming coalitions, and choosing strategies. This more profound understanding is a consequence of obtaining answers to the following questions:(1) What is the mathematical solution, that is, what amount of utility can players be expected to obtain, when it is assumed that players are rational and wish to maximize utility?(2) What is the strategy (or method of playing) that will ensure players of achieving the solution?An answer to the first question indicates what may be anticipated as the outcome of political events. If we know it, then, if also we can assume players are rational maximizers of utility, we can predict the political future with some confidence. An answer to the second question (about strategies) permits political engineers to give advice to politicians about how to behave successfully.

Suggested Citation

  • Riker, William H., 1967. "Bargaining in a Three-Person Game," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(3), pages 642-656, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:61:y:1967:i:03:p:642-656_20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400201044/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Janet E. Berl & Richard D. McKelvey & Peter C. Ordeshook & Mark D. Winer, 1976. "An Experimental Test of the Core in a Simple N-Person Cooperative Nonsidepayment Game," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 20(3), pages 453-479, September.
    2. Byron M. Roth, 1979. "Competing Norms of Distribution in Coalition Games," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(3), pages 513-537, September.
    3. Michel Le Breton & Karine Van Der Straeten, 2017. "Alliances Électorales et Gouvernementales : La Contribution de la Théorie des Jeux Coopératifs à la Science Politique," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 127(4), pages 637-736.
    4. Rod Garratt & James E. Parco & Cheng-Zhong Qin & Amnon Rapoport, 2005. "Potential Maximization And Coalition Government Formation," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(04), pages 407-429.
    5. Bernhardt Lieberman, 1971. "Not an artifact," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 15(1), pages 113-120, March.
    6. William P. Bottom & James Holloway & Scott McClurg & Gary J. Miller, 2000. "Negotiating a Coalition," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(2), pages 147-169, April.
    7. Mushin Lee & Howard Rosenthal, 1976. "A Behavioral Model of Coalition Formation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 20(4), pages 563-588, December.
    8. James J. Buckley & T. Edward Westen, 1976. "Bargaining Set Theory and Majority Rule," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 20(3), pages 481-496, September.
    9. T. Edward Westen & James J. Buckley, 1974. "Toward an Explanation of Experimentally Obtained Outcomes to a Simple, Majority Rule Game," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 18(2), pages 198-236, June.

    More about this item

    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:cup:apsrev:v:61:y:1967:i:03:p:642-656_20. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.