IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v242y2024ics0165176524003720.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Step-by-step negotiations and the Nash bargaining solution: Efficiency-free characterizations

Author

Listed:
  • Nakamura, Kensei

Abstract

Real-world bargainings often proceed step-by-step: the agents make intermediate agreements today and continue to negotiate tomorrow to reach a final agreement. We consider two natural properties of the bargaining solutions in such step-by-step negotiations and show that the Nash solution is the only solution that satisfies either of them, a very weak axiom of individual rationality, and Nash’s axioms except for Pareto optimality.

Suggested Citation

  • Nakamura, Kensei, 2024. "Step-by-step negotiations and the Nash bargaining solution: Efficiency-free characterizations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:242:y:2024:i:c:s0165176524003720
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176524003720
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111888?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Trockel, Walter, 2014. "Robustness of intermediate agreements for the discrete Raiffa solution," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 32-36.
    3. O'Neill, Barry & Samet, Dov & Wiener, Zvi & Winter, Eyal, 2004. "Bargaining with an agenda," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 139-153, July.
    4. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2021. "Step-by-step negotiations and utilitarianism," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(2), pages 433-445, June.
    5. Chun, Youngsub, 1988. "Nash solution and timing of bargaining," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 27-31.
    6. Diskin, A. & Koppel, M. & Samet, D., 2011. "Generalized Raiffa solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 452-458.
    7. van Damme, E.E.C. & Peters, H., 1991. "Characterizing the Nash and Raiffa bargaining solutions by disagreement point axioms," Other publications TiSEM 4bd5eb9e-328a-45a0-aa0a-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Anbarci, Nejat & Sun, Ching-jen, 2013. "Robustness of intermediate agreements and bargaining solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 367-376.
    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. Walter Trockel, 2015. "Axiomatization of the discrete Raiffa solution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(1), pages 9-17, April.
    2. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.
    3. Chatterjee, Kalyan & Chaturvedi, Rakesh, 2024. "Integrating Raiffa and Nash approaches to bargaining using interim agreements," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 105-120.
    4. Youngsub Chun, 2021. "Axioms concerning uncertain disagreement points in 2-person bargaining problems," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 6(1), pages 37-58, December.
    5. Philip Grech & Oriol Tejada, 2018. "Divide the dollar and conquer more: sequential bargaining and risk aversion," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1261-1286, November.
    6. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2021. "Step-by-step negotiations and utilitarianism," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(2), pages 433-445, June.
    7. Ephraim Zehavi & Amir Leshem, 2018. "On the Allocation of Multiple Divisible Assets to Players with Different Utilities," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(1), pages 253-274, June.
    8. Anbarci, Nejat & Sun, Ching-jen, 2013. "Robustness of intermediate agreements and bargaining solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 367-376.
    9. Diskin, A. & Koppel, M. & Samet, D., 2011. "Generalized Raiffa solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 452-458.
    10. Saglam, Ismail, 2016. "An Alternative Characterization for Iterated Kalai-Smorodinsky-Nash Compromise," MPRA Paper 73564, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Ismail Saglam, 2017. "Iterated Kalai–Smorodinsky–Nash compromise," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 40(1), pages 335-349, November.
    12. Trockel, Walter, 2014. "Robustness of intermediate agreements for the discrete Raiffa solution," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 32-36.
    13. Emily Tanimura & Sylvie Thoron, 2016. "How Best to Disagree in Order to Agree?," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(03), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Bas Dietzenbacher & Hans Peters, 2022. "Characterizing NTU-bankruptcy rules using bargaining axioms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 871-888, November.
    15. KIbrIs, Özgür & TapkI, Ipek Gürsel, 2010. "Bargaining with nonanonymous disagreement: Monotonic rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 233-241, January.
    16. Nicolo, Antonio & Perea, Andres, 2005. "Monotonicity and equal-opportunity equivalence in bargaining," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 221-243, March.
    17. Safra, Zvi & Samet, Dov, 2004. "An ordinal solution to bargaining problems with many players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 129-142, January.
    18. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Bejan, Camelia, 2011. "No profitable decompositions in quasi-linear allocation problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(5), pages 1995-2012, September.
    19. Kıbrıs, Özgür & Tapkı, İpek Gürsel, 2011. "Bargaining with nonanonymous disagreement: Decomposable rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 151-161.
    20. Ismail Saglam, 2014. "A Simple Axiomatization Of The Egalitarian Solution," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(04), pages 1-7.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Axiomatic bargaining; Nash solution; Efficiency-free characterizations; Step-by-step negotiations;
    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:eee:ecolet:v:242:y:2024:i:c:s0165176524003720. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.