IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v52y2019i4d10.1007_s00355-018-01170-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Egalitarianism, utilitarianism, and the Nash bargaining solution

Author

Listed:
  • Shiran Rachmilevitch

    (University of Haifa)

Abstract

A bargaining solution satisfies egalitarian–utilitarian monotonicity (EUM) if the following holds under feasible-set-expansion: a decrease in the value of the Rawlsian (resp. utilitarian) objective is accompanied by an increase in the value of the utilitarian (resp. Rawlsian) objective. A bargaining solution is welfarist if it maximizes a symmetric and strictly concave social welfare function. Every 2-person welfarist solution satisfies EUM, but for $$n\ge 3$$ n ≥ 3 every n-person welfarist solution violates it. In the presence of other standard axioms, EUM characterizes the Nash solution in the 2-person case, but leads to impossibility in the n-person case.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2019. "Egalitarianism, utilitarianism, and the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(4), pages 741-751, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:52:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s00355-018-01170-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-018-01170-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00355-018-01170-6
    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/s00355-018-01170-6?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. Marc Fleurbaey & Maurice Salles & John A. Weymark, 2008. "Justice, Political Liberalism, and Utilitarism : Themes from Harsanyi and Rawls," Post-Print halshs-00337593, HAL.
    2. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    3. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2015. "The Nash solution is more utilitarian than egalitarian," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 463-478, November.
    4. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    5. Marco Mariotti, 1999. "Fair Bargains: Distributive Justice and Nash Bargaining Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 733-741.
    6. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    7. Yaari, Menahem E., 1981. "Rawls, edgeworth, shapley, nash: Theories of distributive justice re-examined," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-39, February.
    8. Emin Karagözoğlu & Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2018. "Implementing egalitarianism in a class of Nash demand games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 495-508, October.
    9. Lensberg, T. & Thomson, W., 1988. "Characterizing The Nash Bargaining Solution Without Pareto-Optimality," RCER Working Papers 136, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    10. Fleurbaey,Marc & Salles,Maurice & Weymark,John A. (ed.), 2008. "Justice, Political Liberalism, and Utilitarianism," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521640930, September.
    11. Marc Fleurbaey & Maurice Salles & John A. Weymark, 2008. "Justice, Political Liberalism and Utilitarianism," Post-Print hal-00246415, HAL.
    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.
    2. Mark Schneider & Byung‐Cheol Kim, 2020. "The utilitarian–maximin social welfare function and anomalies in social choice," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(2), pages 629-646, October.
    3. Ana Vukicevic & Milan Vukicevic & Sandro Radovanovic & Boris Delibasic, 2022. "BargCrEx: A System for Bargaining Based Aggregation of Crowd and Expert Opinions in Crowdsourcing," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 789-818, August.
    4. Cetin, Sefane & Hindriks, Jean, 2023. "Sustainability of pension reforms: An EU-wide political stress," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2023016, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).

    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. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2015. "The Nash solution is more utilitarian than egalitarian," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 463-478, November.
    2. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2016. "Egalitarian–utilitarian bounds in Nash’s bargaining problem," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 427-442, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Lim, Wooyoung & Neary, Philip & Newton, Jonathan, 2018. "Conventional contracts, intentional behavior and logit choice: Equality without symmetry," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 273-294.
    5. Lombardi, Michele & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2010. "Alternative characterizations of the proportional solution for nonconvex bargaining problems with claims," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 229-232, August.
    6. M. Voorneveld & A. Nouweland & R. McLean, 2011. "Axiomatizations of the Euclidean compromise solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(3), pages 427-448, August.
    7. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2021. "No individual priorities and the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 855-863, May.
    8. Driesen, Bram, 2016. "Truncated Leximin solutions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 79-87.
    9. Michael Moehler, 2013. "Contractarian ethics and Harsanyi’s two justifications of utilitarianism," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 12(1), pages 24-47, February.
    10. Thomson, William, 2011. "Chapter Twenty-One - Fair Allocation Rules," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 21, pages 393-506, Elsevier.
    11. Xu, Yongsheng & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2006. "Alternative characterizations of three bargaining solutions for nonconvex problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 86-92, October.
    12. 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.
    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. Askoura, Youcef & Billot, Antoine, 2021. "Social decision for a measure society," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    15. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    16. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    17. 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.
    18. Lea Melnikovová, 2017. "Can Game Theory Help to Mitigate Water Conflicts in the Syrdarya Basin?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1393-1401.
    19. Daniele Cassese & Paolo Pin, 2018. "Decentralized Pure Exchange Processes on Networks," Papers 1803.08836, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
    20. 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.

    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:spr:sochwe:v:52:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s00355-018-01170-6. 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.