IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wap/wpaper/2209.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fixation of inequality and emergence of the equal split norm: Approach from behavioral bargaining theory

Author

Listed:
  • Yoshio Kamijo

    (Waseda University)

Abstract

Negotiation is at the heart of communication, social exchange, and economic transactions. Using the bargaining model as the unit of analysis, this study aims to deepen our understanding of negotiation and economic behavior based on the behavioral bargaining theory (BBT) developed by Kamijo and Yokote (2022). We introduce a key concept to analyze a bargaining situation: the stability of entitlements (people’s expectations of distribution or sense of ownership) for a bargaining pie. When a pair of entitlements initially formed is stable, negotiations are expected to end immediately; when unstable, negotiations are more likely to end in delay or failure. We show the boundary condition for stable entitlements and find that some unequal distribution between two players can be stable even for a symmetric bargaining problem. By seeking stable entitlements for all members of society, it is possible to define a distribution norm mathematically. We show that the distribution norm that arises in a symmetric situation is the golden rule of distribution: 50–50 split of the pie. Finally, by examining the dynamic process of the formation of entitlements, we clarify the sufficient conditions under which the equal split norm emerges.

Suggested Citation

  • Yoshio Kamijo, 2023. "Fixation of inequality and emergence of the equal split norm: Approach from behavioral bargaining theory," Working Papers 2209, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics, revised Jun 2023.
    • Handle: RePEc:wap:wpaper:2209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.waseda.jp/fpse/winpec/assets/uploads/2023/01/E2209.pdf
    File Function: First version,
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nejat Anbarci & Nick Feltovich, 2013. "How sensitive are bargaining outcomes to changes in disagreement payoffs?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(4), pages 560-596, December.
    2. Young H. P., 1993. "An Evolutionary Model of Bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 145-168, February.
    3. Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer.
    4. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    5. Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri Drange Hole & Erik Ø Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2007. "The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 818-827, June.
    6. Sigbjørn Birkeland & Bertil Tungodden, 2014. "Fairness motivation in bargaining: a matter of principle," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 125-151, June.
    7. Tore Ellingsen, 1997. "The Evolution of Bargaining Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 581-602.
    8. Yoshio Kamijo & Koji Yokote, 2022. "Behavioral bargaining theory: Equality bias, risk attitude, and reference-dependent utility," Working Papers 2208, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    9. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    10. Thomson, William, 1994. "Cooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 35, pages 1237-1284, Elsevier.
    11. Andrzej Baranski, 2016. "Voluntary Contributions and Collective Redistribution," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 149-173, November.
    12. Andrzej Baranski, 2019. "Endogenous claims and collective production: an experimental study on the timing of profit-sharing negotiations and production," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 857-884, December.
    13. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2018. "How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 320-334.
    14. Lorenzo Bastianello & Marco LiCalzi, 2019. "The Probability to Reach an Agreement as a Foundation for Axiomatic Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(3), pages 837-865, May.
    15. Hoffman, Elizabeth & Spitzer, Matthew L, 1982. "The Coase Theorem: Some Experimental Tests," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 73-98, April.
    16. Murnighan, J Keith & Roth, Alvin E & Schoumaker, Francoise, 1988. "Risk Aversion in Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 101-124, March.
    17. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith, 1982. "The Role of Information in Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1123-1142, September.
    19. Rubinstein, Ariel & Safra, Zvi & Thomson, William, 1992. "On the Interpretation of the Nash Bargaining Solution and Its Extension to Non-expected Utility Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(5), pages 1171-1186, September.
    20. Wolfgang J. Luhan & Odile Poulsen & Michael W. M. Roos, 2019. "Money or morality: fairness ideals in unstructured bargaining," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(4), pages 655-675, December.
    21. Ken Binmore & Larry Samuelson & Petyon Young, 2003. "Equilibrium Selection in Bargaining Models," Levine's Bibliography 506439000000000466, UCLA Department of Economics.
    22. Herbert Dawid & Joern Dermietzel, 2006. "How Robust is the Equal Split Norm? Responsive Strategies, Selection Mechanisms and the Need for Economic Interpretation of Simulation Parameters," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 371-397, November.
    23. Binmore, Ken & Samuelson, Larry & Young, Peyton, 2003. "Equilibrium selection in bargaining models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 296-328, November.
    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. Yoshio Kamijo & Koji Yokote, 2022. "Behavioral bargaining theory: Equality bias, risk attitude, and reference-dependent utility," Working Papers 2208, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    2. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    3. Emin Karagözoğlu & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Performance Information, Production Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2611-2626, November.
    4. Schwaninger, Manuel, 2022. "Sharing with the powerless third: Other-regarding preferences in dynamic bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 341-355.
    5. Sawa, Ryoji, 2021. "A prospect theory Nash bargaining solution and its stochastic stability," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 692-711.
    6. Andreozzi, Luciano, 2010. "An evolutionary theory of social justice: Choosing the right game," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 320-329, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Herbert Dawid & Joern Dermietzel, 2006. "How Robust is the Equal Split Norm? Responsive Strategies, Selection Mechanisms and the Need for Economic Interpretation of Simulation Parameters," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 371-397, November.
    9. Andersson, Ola & Argenton, Cédric & Weibull, Jörgen W., 2018. "Robustness to strategic uncertainty in the Nash demand game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 1-5.
    10. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Equity and bargaining power in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 144-165.
    11. Subrato Banerjee, 2020. "Effect of reduced opportunities on bargaining outcomes: an experiment with status asymmetries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 313-346, October.
    12. He, Simin & Wu, Jiabin & Zhang, Hanzhe, 2021. "Experimental and Noncooperative Analyses of Decentralized Matching with Transfers," Working Papers 2021-2, Michigan State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    14. Li, Shuwen & Houser, Daniel, 2022. "Stochastic bargaining in the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 687-715.
    15. Niklas Dreyer & Robert M. Gillenkirch, 2019. "Cash versus opportunity costs and revenues in bilateral bargaining," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 357-383, June.
    16. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2021. "Evolutionary stability of behavioural rules in bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 399-414.
    17. Stephen Leider & William S. Lovejoy, 2016. "Bargaining in Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 3039-3058, October.
    18. Bolle Friedel & Otto Philipp E., 2016. "Matching as a Stochastic Process," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 236(3), pages 323-348, May.
    19. 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.
    20. Andrzej Baranski & Caleb A. Cox, 2019. "Communication in Multilateral Bargaining with Joint Production," Working Papers 20190032, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Nov 2019.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Behavioral bargaining theory; Nash solution; Reference dependent utility; Stable entitlement; Inequality cap theorem; Distribution norm; Equal split norm;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wap:wpaper:2209. 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: Haruko Noguchi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spwasjp.html .

    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.