IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-22-00539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of mediators in compensation negotiations between gainers and losers

Author

Listed:
  • Jean Christophe Pereau

    (Bordeaux university, BSE)

Abstract

This article aims at modelling compensation between gainers and losers as a system of bilateral bargaining games involving one or two mediators when unanimity is required for the implementation of an economic policy. Results show that there is no unanimity on the choice of negotiation protocol due to the conflicting interests between gainers and losers. But if we assume that the mediators have the choice of the protocol, they always prefer simultaneous rather than stackeberg Nash-in-Nash negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean Christophe Pereau, 2023. "The role of mediators in compensation negotiations between gainers and losers," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 43(2), pages 830-841.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-22-00539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2023/Volume43/EB-23-V43-I2-P67.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baron, David P. & Ferejohn, John A., 1989. "Bargaining in Legislatures," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 1181-1206, December.
    2. Okada, Akira, 1996. "A Noncooperative Coalitional Bargaining Game with Random Proposers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 97-108, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Olivier Compte & Philippe Jehiel, 2010. "The Coalitional Nash Bargaining Solution," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(5), pages 1593-1623, September.
    2. Okada, Akira, 2011. "Coalitional bargaining games with random proposers: Theory and application," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 227-235, September.
    3. Montero, M.P., 2002. "Two-Stage Bargaining with Reversible Coalitions : The Case of Apex Games," Other publications TiSEM 7dba0283-bc13-4f2c-8f5e-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Montero, Maria, 2002. "Non-cooperative bargaining in apex games and the kernel," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 309-321, November.
    5. Toshiji Miyakawa, 2009. "Existence and efficiency of a stationary subgame-perfect equilibrium in coalitional bargaining models with nonsuperadditive payoffs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(2), pages 291-306, May.
    6. Okada, Akira & 岡田, 章, 2012. "The Stationary Equilibrium of Three-Person Cooperative Games: A Classification," Discussion Papers 2012-06, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.
    7. Miller, Luis & Montero, Maria & Vanberg, Christoph, 2018. "Legislative bargaining with heterogeneous disagreement values: Theory and experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 60-92.
    8. Yildirim, Huseyin, 2007. "Proposal power and majority rule in multilateral bargaining with costly recognition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 167-196, September.
    9. Gomes, Armando, 2022. "Coalitional bargaining games: A new concept of value and coalition formation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 463-477.
    10. Akira Okada, 2015. "Cooperation and Institution in Games," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 66(1), pages 1-32, March.
    11. Maria Montero, 2007. "Inequity Aversion May Increase Inequity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(519), pages 192-204, March.
    12. Zapechelnyuk, Andriy, 2013. "Eliciting information from a committee," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(5), pages 2049-2067.
    13. Maria Montero, 2023. "Bargaining in Legislatures: A New Donation Paradox," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Sascha Kurz & Nicola Maaser & Alexander Mayer (ed.), Advances in Collective Decision Making, pages 159-171, Springer.
    14. Kalandrakis, Tasos, 2015. "Computation of equilibrium values in the Baron and Ferejohn bargaining model," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 29-38.
    15. Testa, Cecilia, 2003. "Government corruption and legislative procedures: is one chamber better than two?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6642, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Iaryczower, Matias & Oliveros, Santiago, 2023. "Collective hold-up," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(3), July.
    17. Kim, Chulyoung & Kim, Sang-Hyun & Lee, Jinhyuk & Lee, Joosung, 2022. "Strategic alliances in a veto game: An experimental study," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    18. Caparrós, By Alejandro & Pereau, Jean-Christophe, 2021. "Inefficient coasean negotiations over emissions and transfers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 359-378.
    19. Montero, Maria, 2017. "Proportional Payoffs in Legislative Bargaining with Weighted Voting: A Characterization," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 12(3), pages 325-346, October.
    20. Tomohiko Kawamori, 2021. "Core equivalence in collective-choice bargaining under minimal assumptions," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(2), pages 259-267, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nash-in-Nash negotiation; Nash bargaining solution; gainers; losers;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • H8 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-22-00539. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.