IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v251y2017i1d10.1007_s10479-015-1894-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The conservative Kalai–Smorodinsky solution for multiple scenario bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • L. Monroy

    (Universidad de Sevilla)

  • V. Rubiales

    (Universidad de Sevilla)

  • A. M. Mármol

    (Universidad de Sevilla)

Abstract

In this paper we address two-person bargaining problems under uncertainty where several states of nature or future scenarios are considered. We propose a solution concept based on the distance to a utopia minimum outcome vector, which guarantees conservative levels of achievement for the agents. We also provide an axiomatic characterization for a significant class of these bargaining problems. An extension of the classic model of firm-union negotiation, which includes situations where uncertainty about the consequences of the agreements have to be taken into account, is analyzed in this framework.

Suggested Citation

  • L. Monroy & V. Rubiales & A. M. Mármol, 2017. "The conservative Kalai–Smorodinsky solution for multiple scenario bargaining," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 285-299, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:251:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-015-1894-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-015-1894-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-015-1894-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-015-1894-5?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. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    2. David Dickinson & Lynn Hunnicutt, 2010. "Nonbinding recommendations: the relative effects of focal points versus uncertainty reduction on bargaining outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 615-634, October.
    3. Marmol, A.M. & Monroy, L. & Rubiales, V., 2007. "An equitable solution for multicriteria bargaining games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1523-1534, March.
    4. McDonald, Ian M & Solow, Robert M, 1981. "Wage Bargaining and Employment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 896-908, December.
    5. Bossert, Walter & Nosal, Ed & Sadanand, Venkatraman, 1996. "Bargaining under Uncertainty and the Monotone Path Solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 173-189, June.
    6. Bossert, Walter & Peters, Hans, 2001. "Minimax Regret and Efficient Bargaining under Uncertainty," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-10, January.
    7. David Dickinson, 2009. "The Effects of Beliefs Versus Risk Attitude on Bargaining Outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 69-101, January.
    8. Alexander, C O & Ledermann, W, 1996. "Are Nash Bargaining Wage Agreements Unique? An Investigation into Bargaining Sets for Firm-Union Negotiations," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 242-253, April.
    9. Roemer, John E., 1988. "Axiomatic bargaining theory on economic environments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-31, June.
    10. Riddell, W Craig, 1981. "Bargaining under Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(4), pages 579-590, September.
    11. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    12. Sessions, John G., 2008. "Wages, supervision and sharing," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 653-672, November.
    13. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    14. Gerber, Anke & Upmann, Thorsten, 2006. "Bargaining solutions at work: Qualitative differences in policy implications," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 162-175, September.
    15. Geoffroy Clippel, 2007. "An axiomatization of the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(2), pages 201-210, September.
    16. Sunil Gupta, 1989. "Modeling Integrative, Multiple Issue Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(7), pages 788-806, July.
    17. Rong Kang, 2012. "An Axiomatic Approach to Arbitration and its Application in Bargaining Games," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-34, September.
    18. M. Hinojosa & A. Mármol & L. Monroy, 2005. "Generalized Maximin Solutions in Multicriteria Bargaining," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 243-255, July.
    19. Minas Vlassis, 2003. "Wage Centralization and the Scope of Firm–Union Bargaining: ‘Efficient Bargains’ or ‘Labour Demand’?," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 71(3), pages 308-329, June.
    20. Linda A. Bell, 1995. "Union Wage Concessions in the 1980s: The Importance of Firm-Specific Factors," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 48(2), pages 258-275, January.
    21. Peters, Hans J M, 1986. "Simultaneity of Issues and Additivity in Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(1), pages 153-169, 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. Xiaogang Ma & Chunyu Bao & Jizi Li & Wandong Lou, 2022. "The impact of dual fairness concerns on bargaining game and its dynamic system stability," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(1), pages 357-382, November.

    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. Amparo M. Mármol Conde & Clara Ponsatí Obiols, 2006. "Bargaining Multiple Issues with Leximin Preferences," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2006/05, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    2. l'Haridon, Olivier & Malherbet, Franck & Pérez-Duarte, Sébastien, 2013. "Does bargaining matter in the small firms matching model?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 42-58.
    3. Claus-Jochen Haake & Thorsten Upmann & Papatya Duman, 2020. "Wage Bargaining and Employment Revisited: Separability and Efficiency in Collective Bargaining," CESifo Working Paper Series 8422, CESifo.
    4. Vincent Martinet & Pedro Gajardo & Michel de Lara, 2021. "Bargaining On Monotonic Economic Environments," Working Papers hal-03206724, HAL.
    5. Claus-Jochen Haake & Thorsten Upmann & Papatya Duman, 2019. "The Decomposability of the Nash Bargaining Solution in Labor Markets," Working Papers CIE 128, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    6. Claus‐Jochen Haake & Thorsten Upmann & Papatya Duman, 2023. "Wage bargaining and employment revisited: separability and efficiency in collective bargaining," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 125(2), pages 403-440, April.
    7. Gerber, Anke & Upmann, Thorsten, 2006. "Bargaining solutions at work: Qualitative differences in policy implications," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 162-175, September.
    8. Ismail Saglam, 2013. "Endogenously proportional bargaining solutions," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(2), pages 1521-1534.
    9. Samir Amine & Sylvain Baumann & Pedro Lages Dos Santos, 2018. "Bargaining Solutions and Public Policies in Matching Models," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 4, pages 3-14.
    10. Navarro, Noemí & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2020. "On the empirical validity of axioms in unstructured bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-145.
    11. Ok, Efe A., 1998. "Inequality averse collective choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 301-321, October.
    12. Sanchez, M. Carmen, 2000. "Rationality of bargaining solutions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 389-399, May.
    13. Dominik Karos & Nozomu Muto & Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2018. "A generalization of the Egalitarian and the Kalai–Smorodinsky bargaining solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1169-1182, November.
    14. Karos, Dominik & Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2019. "The midpoint-constrained egalitarian bargaining solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 107-112.
    15. Yoshihara, Naoki, 2003. "Characterizations of bargaining solutions in production economies with unequal skills," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 256-285, February.
    16. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2017. "Axiomatizations of the equal-loss and weighted equal-loss bargaining solutions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 1-9, June.
    17. Joan Esteban & József Sákovics, 2002. "Endogenous bargaining power," Economics Working Papers 644, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    18. Chen, Mark A. & Maskin, Eric S., 1999. "Bargaining, Production, and Monotonicity in Economic Environments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 140-147, November.
    19. Anbarci, Nejat & Sun, Ching-jen, 2013. "Robustness of intermediate agreements and bargaining solutions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 367-376.
    20. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2018. "Anchoring on Utopia: a generalization of the Kalai–Smorodinsky solution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 6(2), pages 141-155, October.

    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:spr:annopr:v:251:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-015-1894-5. 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.