IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jeczfn/v115y2015i3p257-274.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk aversion in the Nash bargaining problem with uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Sanxi Li
  • Hailin Sun
  • Jianye Yan
  • Xundong Yin

Abstract

In this study, we apply the aggregation property of Identical Shape Harmonic Absolute Risk Aversion utility functions to analyze the comparative statics properties of a bargaining model with uncertainty. We identify sufficient and necessary conditions under which an increase in one’s degree of risk aversion benefits/hurts one’s opponent. We apply our model to analyze the problems of bargaining over both insurance and incentive contracts. Copyright Springer-Verlag Wien 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Sanxi Li & Hailin Sun & Jianye Yan & Xundong Yin, 2015. "Risk aversion in the Nash bargaining problem with uncertainty," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 257-274, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jeczfn:v:115:y:2015:i:3:p:257-274
    DOI: 10.1007/s00712-014-0413-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00712-014-0413-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00712-014-0413-5?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. Bental, Benjamin & Demougin, Dominique, 2008. "Do factor shares reflect technology?," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 1329-1334, September.
    2. Demougin, Dominique M. & Helm, Carsten, 2008. "Incentive contracts and efficient unemployment benefits," Darmstadt Discussion Papers in Economics 191, Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Law and Economics.
    3. Patrick Legros & Andrew F. Newman, 2007. "Beauty Is a Beast, Frog Is a Prince: Assortative Matching with Nontransferabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(4), pages 1073-1102, July.
    4. repec:dar:wpaper:33619 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:bla:germec:v:7:y:2006:i::p:463-470 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Patrick Legros & Andrew Newman, 2007. "Beauty is a beast, frog is a prince :assortative matching in a nontransferable world," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/7022, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Bental, Benjamin & Demougin, Dominique, 2010. "Declining labor shares and bargaining power: An institutional explanation," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 443-456, March.
    8. Kannai, Yakar, 1977. "Concavifiability and constructions of concave utility functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-56, March.
    9. Sobel, Joel, 1981. "Distortion of Utilities and the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 597-619, May.
    10. Demougin Dominique & Helm Carsten, 2006. "Moral Hazard and Bargaining Power," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 7(4), pages 463-470, December.
    11. Roth, Alvin E & Rothblum, Uriel G, 1982. "Risk Aversion and Nash's Solution for Bargaining Games with Risky Outcomes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 639-647, May.
    12. Anbarci, Nejat & Sun, Ching-jen, 2013. "Asymmetric Nash bargaining solutions: A simple Nash program," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 211-214.
    13. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1987. "Aggregation and Linearity in the Provision of Intertemporal Incentives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 303-328, March.
    14. Dieter Balkenborg, 2001. "How Liable Should a Lender Be? The Case of Judgment-Proof Firms and Environmental Risk: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 731-738, June.
    15. David Lam, 1988. "Marriage Markets and Assortative Mating with Household Public Goods: Theoretical Results and Empirical Implications," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 23(4), pages 462-487.
    16. Kerwin Kofi Charles & Erik Hurst, 2003. "The Correlation of Wealth across Generations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(6), pages 1155-1182, December.
    17. Schmitz, Patrick W., 2005. "Workplace surveillance, privacy protection, and efficiency wages," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(6), pages 727-738, December.
    18. Safra, Zvi & Zhou, Lin & Zilcha, Itzhak, 1990. "Risk Aversion in the Nash Bargaining Problem with Risky Outcomes and Risky Disagreement Points," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 961-965, July.
    19. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    20. Pitchford, Rohan, 1998. "Moral hazard and limited liability: The real effects of contract bargaining," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 251-259, November.
    21. Schulhofer-Wohl, Sam, 2006. "Negative assortative matching of risk-averse agents with transferable expected utility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 383-388, September.
    22. White, Lucy, 2008. "Prudence in bargaining: The effect of uncertainty on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 211-231, January.
    23. Dittrich, Marcus & Städter, Silvio, 2015. "Moral hazard and bargaining over incentive contracts," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 75-85.
    24. Yao, Zhiyong, 2012. "Bargaining over incentive contracts," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 98-106.
    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. 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.

    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. Dittrich, Marcus & Städter, Silvio, 2015. "Moral hazard and bargaining over incentive contracts," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 75-85.
    2. Aristidis K. Nikoloulopoulos & Peter G. Moffatt, 2019. "Coupling Couples With Copulas: Analysis Of Assortative Matching On Risk Attitude," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 654-666, January.
    3. Kobberling, Veronika & Peters, Hans, 2003. "The effect of decision weights in bargaining problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 154-175, May.
    4. Volij, Oscar & Winter, Eyal, 2002. "On risk aversion and bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 120-140, October.
    5. Luc Arrondel & Nicolas Frémeaux, 2016. "‘For Richer, For Poorer’: Assortative Mating and Savings Preferences," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 83(331), pages 518-543, July.
    6. Yanbin Chen & Pu Chen & Yumei Guo & Sanxi Li & Dongmin Yao, 2019. "Bargaining to Design Contracts under Moral Hazard," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 175(4), pages 714-735.
    7. Rausser, Gordon C. & Simon, Leo K., 2016. "Nash bargaining and risk aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 1-9.
    8. Hailin Sun & Sanxi Li & Tong Wang, 2013. "Change in risk and bargaining game," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 036, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    9. Li Sanxi & Xiao Hao & Yao Dongmin, 2013. "Contract Bargaining with a Risk-Averse Agent," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 285-301, November.
    10. Jonathan Shalev, 2002. "Loss Aversion and Bargaining," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 201-232, May.
    11. Driesen, Bram & Lombardi, Michele & Peters, Hans, 2016. "Feasible sets, comparative risk aversion, and comparative uncertainty aversion in bargaining," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 162-170.
    12. Sanxi Li & Hailin Sun & Pu Chen, 2013. "Assortative matching of risk-averse agents with endogenous risk," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 27-40, May.
    13. Embrey, Matthew & Hyndman, Kyle & Riedl, Arno, 2021. "Bargaining with a residual claimant: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 335-354.
    14. White, Lucy, 2006. "Prudence in Bargaining: The Effect of Uncertainty on Bargaining Outcomes," CEPR Discussion Papers 5822, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Xiao Yu Wang, 2014. "Risk Sorting, Portfolio Choice, and Endogenous Informal Insurance," NBER Working Papers 20429, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Sperisen, Benjamin & Wiseman, Thomas, 2020. "Too good to fire: Non-assortative matching to play a dynamic game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 491-511.
    17. Gomez, Juan Camilo, 2006. "Achieving efficiency with manipulative bargainers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 254-263, November.
    18. Marco A. Marini & Paolo Polidori & Désirée Teobaldelli & Davide Ticchi, 2018. "Optimal Incentives in a Principal–Agent Model with Endogenous Technology," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, February.
    19. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Reny, Philip J., 2016. "Matching to share risk," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(1), January.
    20. Kambhampati, Ashwin & Segura-Rodriguez, Carlos & Shao, Peng, 2024. "Why informationally diverse teams need not form, even when efficient," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bargaining; The Nash solution; ISHARA preference ; Risk aversion; C70; C78;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory

    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:kap:jeczfn:v:115:y:2015:i:3:p:257-274. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.