IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v51y1996i3p295-301.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Walrasian approach to bargaining games

Author

Listed:
  • Trockel, Walter

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Trockel, Walter, 1996. "A Walrasian approach to bargaining games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 295-301, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:51:y:1996:i:3:p:295-301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165-1765(96)00822-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roth, Alvin E, 1978. "The Nash Solution and the Utility of Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(3), pages 587-594, May.
    2. Roth, Alvin, 2012. "The Shapley Value as a von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 1-9.
    3. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1972. "A Generalized Nash Solution for Two-Person Bargaining Games with Incomplete Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5-Part-2), pages 80-106, January.
    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. Trockel, Walter, 2017. "Can and should the Nash Program be looked at as a part of mechanism theory," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 322, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    2. Walter Trockel, 1999. "On the Nash Program for the Nash Bargaining Solution," UCLA Economics Working Papers 788, UCLA Department of Economics.
    3. Sun, Ning & Trockel, Walter & Yang, Zaifu, 2008. "Competitive outcomes and endogenous coalition formation in an n-person game," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(7-8), pages 853-860, July.
    4. Walter Trockel, 2002. "Integrating the Nash program into mechanism theory," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 7(1), pages 27-43.
    5. Brangewitz, Sonja & Gamp, Jan-Philip, 2016. "Inner Core, Asymmetric Nash Bargaining Solutions and Competitive Payoffs," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 453, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    6. Claus-Jochen Haake & Walter Trockel, 2022. "Socio-legal systems and implementation of the Nash solution in Debreu–Hurwicz equilibrium," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 635-649, December.
    7. Trockel, Walter, 2017. "Unique Nash implementation for a class of bargaining solutions," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 308, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    8. Brangewitz, Sonja & Gamp, Jan-Philip, 2013. "Asymmetric Nash bargaining solutions and competitive payoffs," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 224-227.
    9. Sonja Brangewitz & Jan-Philip Gamp, 2014. "Competitive outcomes and the inner core of NTU market games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 57(3), pages 529-554, November.
    10. Duman, Papatya & Trockel, Walter, 2020. "Nash Smoothing on the Test Bench: $H_{\alpha}$ -Essential Equilibria," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 632, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    11. Trockel, Walter, 2011. "Core-equivalence for the Nash bargaining solution," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 355, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    12. Alon, Shiri & Lehrer, Ehud, 2019. "Competitive equilibrium as a bargaining solution: An axiomatic approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 60-71.
    13. Papatya Duman & Walter Trockel, 2020. "Nash Smoothing on the Test Bench: Ha-Essential Equilibria," Working Papers CIE 130, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    14. Papatya Duman & Walter Trockel, 2016. "On non-cooperative foundation and implementation of the Nash solution in subgame perfect equilibrium via Rubinstein's game," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 1(1), pages 83-107, December.

    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. Anke Gerber, 2020. "The Nash Solution as a von Neumann–Morgenstern Utility Function on Bargaining Games," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 87-104, November.
    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. Ehud Kalai & Roger B. Myerson, 1977. "Values of Games Without Sidepayments," Discussion Papers 267, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    4. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    5. Casajus, André, 2014. "Potential, value, and random partitions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 164-166.
    6. Jin Yeub Kim, 2022. "Neutral public good mechanisms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Le Breton, Michel & Montero, Maria & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2012. "Voting power in the EU council of ministers and fair decision making in distributive politics," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 159-173.
    8. Eric van Damme & Xu Lang, 2022. "Two-Person Bargaining when the Disagreement Point is Private Information," Papers 2211.06830, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    9. Wagneur, Edouard, 1988. "Négociation collective et théorie des jeux : le rôle du temps dans la littérature récente," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 64(1), pages 68-95, mars.
    10. Anderhub, Vital & Guth, Werner & Marchand, Nadege, 2004. "Early or late conflict settlement in a variety of games - An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-194, April.
    11. Alecos Papadopoulos, 2024. "The Nash Bargaining Two-tier Stochastic Frontier Model," Advances in Econometrics, in: Essays in Honor of Subal Kumbhakar, volume 46, pages 439-476, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    12. Kandori, Michihiro & Serrano, Roberto & Volij, Oscar, 2008. "Decentralized trade, random utility and the evolution of social welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 328-338, May.
    13. R. Harrison Wagner, 1979. "On The Unification of Two-Person Bargaining Theory," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(1), pages 71-101, March.
    14. André Casajus, 2010. "Another characterization of the Owen value without the additivity axiom," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 523-536, October.
    15. Mehmet S. Ismail & Ronald Peeters, 2024. "A connection between von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility and symmetric potential games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 707-720, December.
    16. Kai A. Konrad & Thomas R. Cusack, 2013. "Hanging Together or Being Hung Separately: The Strategic Power of Coalitions where Bargaining Occurs with Incomplete Information," CESifo Working Paper Series 4071, CESifo.
    17. Julio B. Clempner, 2025. "Manipulation Game Considering No-Regret Strategies," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Lv, Wei & Li, Hongyi & Tang, Jiafu, 2017. "Bargaining model of labor disputes considering social mediation and bounded rationalityAuthor-Name: Liu, Dehai," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(3), pages 1064-1071.
    19. Forgo, F. & Szidarovszky, F., 2003. "On the relation between the Nash bargaining solution and the weighting method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 108-116, May.
    20. Zhongwei Feng & Chunqiao Tan & Jinchun Zhang & Qiang Zeng, 2021. "Bargaining Game with Altruistic and Spiteful Preferences," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 277-300, April.

    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:eee:ecolet:v:51:y:1996:i:3:p:295-301. 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.