Finite Horizon Bargaining With Outside Options And Threat Points

We characterize equilibrium behavior in a finite horizon multiple-pie alternating offer bargaining game in which both agents have outside options and threat points. In contrast to the infinite horizon case the strength of the threat to delay agreement is non-stationary and decreases over time. Typically the delay threat determines equilibrium proposals in early periods, while the threat to opt out characterizes those in later ones. Owing to this non-stationarity both threats may appear in the equilibrium shares immediately agreed upon in the first period. When the threat to opt out is empty for both agents, the outcome corresponds exactly with the (generalized) Nash bargaining solution. The latter observation may prove useful for designing experiments that are meant to test economic models that include a bargaining stage.JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES: C78, C91.The useful remarks of an anonymous referee greatly improved the presentation of the material and are gratefully acknowledged. The usual disclaimer applies.     

Overlapping coalitions,bargaining and networks

We model the formation of coalitions that are not necessarily disjoint. We propose a new bargaining game that yields an overlapping coalition structure as an outcome. Equilibrium does not always exist in pure strategies for such a game, but we show that it always exists with a mild degree of mixed strategies. We derive conditions for a complete duality between networks and overlapping coalitions, and we provide a new rationale for the sequential formation of networks.     

Game-theoretic analyses of coalition behavior

Coalitions are frequently more visible than payoffs. The theory of n-person games seeks primarily to identify stable allocations of valued resources; consequently, it gives inadequate attention to predicting which coalitions form. This paper explores a way of correcting this deficiency of game-theoretic reasoning by extending the theory of two-person cooperative games to predict both coalitions and payoffs in a three-person game of status in which each player seeks to maximize the rank of his total score. To accomplish this, we analyze the negotiations within each potential two-person coalition from the perspective of Nash's procedure for arbitrating two-person bargaining games, then assume that players expect to achieve the arbitrated outcome selected by this procedure and use these expectations to predict achieved ranks and to identify players' preferences between alternative coalition partners in order to predict the probability that each coalition forms. We test these payoff and coalition predictions with data from three laboratory studies, and compare the results with those attained in the same data by von Neumann and Morgenstern's solution of two-person cooperative games, Aumann and Maschler's bargaining set solution for cooperative n-person games, and an alternative model of coalition behavior in three-person sequential games of status.

---

     

Regular updating

This article presents a new model aimed at predicting behavior in games involving a randomized allocation procedure. It is designed to capture the relative importance and interaction between procedural justice (defined crudely in terms of the difference between one’s expected payoff and average expected payoff in the group) and distributive justice (difference between own and average actual payoffs). The model is applied to experimental games, including “randomized” variations of simple sequential bargaining games, and delivers qualitatively correct predictions. In view of the model redistribution of income can be seen as a substitute for vertical social mobility. This contributes to the explanation of greater demand for redistribution in European countries vis-a-vis the United States. I conclude with suggestions for further verification of the model and possible extensions.     

Risk aversion in bargaining: An experimental study

This paper reports the results of three experiments designed to test the predictions of the principal game-theoretic models of bargaining concerning the influence of risk aversion on bargaining outcomes. These models predict that risk aversion will be disadvantageous in bargaining except in situations in which potential agreements are lotteries with a positive probability of being worse than disagreement. The experimental results support the models' predictions. However, in the range of payoffs studied here, the effects due to risk aversion may be smaller than some of the focal point effects observed in previous experiments. Implications for further theoretical and experimental work are considered.     

对费斯克大众文化理论的解读与质疑

费斯克的大众文化理论主要是关于大众能动性抵制权力控制和文化集权的研究,为当代大众文化研究开创了新的研究方式,代表了新的研究取向。但他的大众文化理论由于具有明显的文化民粹主义倾向,自产生以来就受到了激烈的批评。因此,通过对费斯克大众文化理论的解读与分析,有助于为中国的大众文化研究提供新的视角,并具有重要的理论价值与现实意义。     

Collective bargaining levels,employment and wage inequality in Spain

After the increase in inequalities following the Great Recession, studies on wage bargaining systems have increasingly focused on wage inequality. This research examines wage inequality associated with collective bargaining levels in Spain, based on matched employer–employee microdata and quantile regression methods. These methods are applied across the wage distribution, following the method proposed by Firpo et al. (2011), to estimate wage premiums associated with agreement levels and to decompose the wage differentials observed at different points of the wage distribution. From the evidence obtained it can be concluded that, although the higher wages found in firm-level agreements are explained by the better observed characteristics of firms and workers covered by these collective agreements, there remains a positive wage premium. Although this premium is seen throughout the wage distribution, it favours mostly workers in the middle and upper-middle end. This slightly increases wage inequality in comparison with sectoral agreements. In contrast, workers without collective bargaining coverage generally suffer a wage penalty. This penalty is only observed on the left of the wage distribution. It becomes a significant wage premium in the upper end of the distribution, which implies a significant increase in wage inequality. In short, the evidence of this research suggests that reducing the coverage of collective bargaining could be associated with a significant increase in wage inequality. A better policy option for countries with a predominant sectoral model, such as Spain, would be to move towards an organized decentralization model. This would cause significant gains in employment as suggested by OECD (2019) and only a slight increase in wage inequality.     

政策实施成本与上下级政府讨价还价的发生机制——基于四东县休禁牧案例的分析

讨价还价是中国上下级政府互动关系中很重要的一种形式。本文详细记述了四东县草原休禁牧政策实施过程中上下级政府的多轮讨价还价，县政府制定政策，政策严格落实导致政府与民众的冲突频发，乡镇政府以冲突为策略与县政府讨价还价，最终获得了相对宽松的执行空间。本文使用实施成本分析框架解释了讨价还价行为的发生机制，执行过程成本、上级施加成本、民众施加成本高昂，致使乡镇政府只能选择与上级讨价还价。随着社会冲突的加剧，乡镇政府的讨价还价能力相对提高，使得双方的协议点从严格执行端向宽松执行端移动。执行无僵局、协议点左右摆动、短期均衡与讨价还价的交替发生是政策执行中上下级政府讨价还价的基本特征。     

The Effects of Beliefs Versus Risk Attitude on Bargaining Outcomes

In bargaining environments with uncertain disagreement or “impasse” outcomes (e.g., litigation or labor strike outcomes), there is an identification problem that confounds data interpretation. Specifically, the minimally acceptable settlement value from a risk-averse (risk-loving) but unbiased-belief bargainer is empirically indistinguishable from what one could get with risk-neutrality and pessimistically (optimistically) biased beliefs. This article reports results from a controlled bargaining experiment where data on both risk attitude and beliefs under uncertainty are generated in order to assess their relative importance in bargaining experiment outcomes. The average lab subject is risk-averse, yet optimistic with respect to uncertainty, which is consistent with existing studies that examine each in isolation. I also find that the effects of optimism dominate those of risk-aversion. Optimistic bargainers are significantly more likely to dispute and have aggressive final bargaining positions. Dispute rates are not statistically affected by risk attitude, but there is some evidence that risk aversion leads to a weakened bargaining position. Though additional research is needed to understand the limits of extending these results, a key implication follows. In uncertainty environments where optimism dominates, increased settlement rates are more likely achieved by minimizing impasse uncertainty (to limit the potential for optimism) rather than maximizing uncertainty (to weaken the reservation point of risk-averse bargainers), as has been argued in the dispute resolution literature.      

Mechanism robustness in multilateral bargaining

This paper discusses the relationship between coalitional stability and the robustness of bargaining outcomes to the bargaining procedure. We consider a class of bargaining procedures described by extensive form games, where payoff opportunities are given by a characteristic function (cooperative) game. The extensive form games differ on the probability distribution assigned to chance moves which determine the order in which players take actions. One way to define mechanism robustness is in terms of the property of no first mover advantage. An equilibrium is mechanism robust if for each member the expected payoff before and after being called to propose is the same. Alternatively one can define mechanism robustness as a property of equilibrium outcomes. An outcome is said to be mechanism robust if it is supported by some equilibrium in all the extensive form games (mechanisms) within our class. We show that both definitions of mechanism robustness provide an interesting characterization of the core of the underlying cooperative game.     

Fairness motivation in bargaining: a matter of principle

In this paper, we study the role of fairness motivation in bargaining. We show that bargaining between two strongly fairness motivated individuals who have different views about what represents a fair division may end in disagreement. Further, by applying the Nash bargaining solution, we study the influence of fairness motivation on the bargaining outcome when an agreement is reached. In particular, we show that the bargaining outcome is sensitive to the fairness motivation of the two individuals, unless they both consider an equal division fair. We argue that our results accommodate existing experimental and field data on bargaining.     

On arguments from self-interest for the Nash solution and the Kalai egalitarian solution to the bargaining problem

I argue in this paper that there are two considerations which govern the dynamics of a two-person bargaining game, viz. relative proportionate utility loss from conceding to one's opponent's proposal and relative non-proportionate utility loss from not conceding to one's opponent's proposal, if she were not to concede as well. The first consideration can adequately be captured by the information contained in vNM utilities. The second requires measures of utility which allow for an interpersonal comparison of utility differences. These considerations respectively provide for a justification of the Nash solution and the Kalai egalitarian solution. However, none of these solutions taken by themselves can provide for a full story of bargaining, since, if within a context of bargaining one such consideration is overriding, the solution which does not match this consideration will yield unreasonable results. I systematically present arguments to the effect that each justification from self-interest for respectively the Nash and the Kalai egalitarian solution is vulnerable to this kind of objection. I suggest that the search for an integrative model may be a promising line of research.I am grateful to Jon Elster, A. Hylland, F. Spinnewijn, J. Verhoeven and the members of the research group for theoretical sociology in the K.U.L. for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. I also thank the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Norway) for its financial support and the members of the department of sociology in the University of Oslo for their hospitality and interest in my work.     

Loss Aversion and Bargaining

We consider bargaining situations where two players evaluate outcomes with reference-dependent utility functions, analyzing the effect of differing levels of loss aversion on bargaining outcomes. We find that as with risk aversion, increasing loss aversion for a player leads to worse outcomes for that player in bargaining situations. An extension of Nash's axioms is used to define a solution for bargaining problems with exogenous reference points. Using this solution concept we endogenize the reference points into the model and find a unique solution giving reference points and outcomes that satisfy two reasonable properties, which we predict would be observed in a steady state. The resulting solution also emerges in two other approaches, a strategic (non-cooperative) approach using Rubinstein's (1982) alternating offers model and a dynamic approach in which we find that even under weak assumptions, outcomes and reference points converge to the steady state solution from any non-equilibrium state.     

A characterization of the maximin rule in the context of voting

In a voting context, when the preferences of voters are described by linear orderings over a finite set of alternatives, the Maximin rule orders the alternatives according to their minimal rank in the voters’ preferences. It is equivalent to the Fallback bargaining process described by Brams and Kilgour (Group Decision and Negotiation 10:287–316, 2001). This article proposes a characterization of the Maximin rule as a social welfare function (SWF) based upon five conditions: Neutrality, Duplication, Unanimity, Top Invariance, and Weak Separability. In a similar way, we obtain a characterization for the Maximax SWF by using Bottom Invariance instead of Top Invariance. Then, these results are compared to the axiomatic characterizations of two famous scoring rules, the Plurality rule and the Antiplurality rule.     

Distributive justice of bargaining and risk sensitivity

In this paper we will point out some possibilities and limitations of the discussion of distributive justice by bargaining in the classical bargaining models.We start by considering a kind of bargaining situation where two persons with different risk aversions have to distribute a given quantity of a certain good. Then we define a model in which two bargaining situations are compared. In both situations two persons divide a quantity of a certain good; in the second situation one of the persons, say person 2, is replaced by a more risk averse person. From a well-known theorem of Kihlstrom, Roth and Schmeidler it follows that in the Nash solution, the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution and the Maschler-Perles solution person 1 prefers the situation with the more risk averse opponent.In both classes of problems the judgement of distributive justice is impossible because of an informational poverty of the classical bargaining model. We propose to integrate changes in the economic situation of the persons into the model.Therefore, in a third step, we compare two distributive situations, where differences in the situations are implied by changes in the initial endowments of the persons. Under the assumption that each person has a decreasing local risk aversion, we show that every reallocation of the initial endowments is enlarged or at least preserved by risk sensitive bargaining solutions. This fact has some significance for the discussion of distributive justice in social decision making by bargaining.     

Two-person sequential bargaining behavior with exogenous breakdown

We examine bargaining behavior in a noncooperative game in which players alternate in making and responding to proposals over the division of a given surplus. Although the number of bargaining periods is unlimited and time is not discounted, the bargaining is subject to exogenous breakdown at each period with a fixed probability which is common knowledge. We manipulate three probabilities of break-down in a between-subjects design that allows comparison with previous studies of two-person bargaining with time discounting. Assuming that subjects maximize expected utility, and this utility is measured by monetary payoffs, our results reject both the subgame perfect equilibrium and equal split solutions. Data analyses reveal that a substantial percentage of subjects behave adaptively in that they systematically search for the highest acceptable demands.     

Uncertainty,the bargaining problem,and the Nash-Zeuthen solution

The Zeuthen bargaining model occupies a prominent place among those theories of the bargaining process that have been formulated and expounded by economists. Its solution to the bargaining problem is essentially economic, since invariant utility functions based on economic factors alone determine the outcome. However, this paper shows that a necessary condition for reaching the Zeuthen solution (shown by Harsanyi to be mathematically equivalent to the game-theoretic solution of Nash's theory) is that bargainers initially take up positions on opposite sides of the outcome that maximizes their utility product. Whether utility functions are mutually known or unknown, inherent in the bargaining situation itself is the requirement that bargainers be at least initially uncertain as to each other's subsequent concession behaviour. With uncertainty, von Neumann-Morgenstern rationality implies that each bargainer would make an initial demand that maximizes the expected gain from holding fast. Therefore, even if Zeuthen's concession criterion should subsequently dictate concession behaviour, expected utility maximization within the context of subjective uncertainty may well yield initial demands that are inconsistent with reaching the Nash-Zeuthen solution. Finally, a general methodological conclusion that emerges from the analysis is that, since the bargaining process necessarily proceeds from a context of subjective uncertainty, greater emphasis needs to be placed on its role as a device for affecting expectations.     

Externalities in a Bargaining Model of Public Price Announcements and Resale

We study the one-seller/two-buyer bargaining problem with negative identity-dependent externalities with an alternating offer bargaining model in which new owners of the object have the opportunity of resale. We identify the generically unique subgame perfect equilibrium outcome. The resale opportunity increases the competition among the buyers and therefore benefits the seller. When competition between buyers is very fierce, the seller may prefer to respond to bids rather than to propose an offer herself: a first-mover disadvantage.     

Nash Bargaining Theory,Nonconvex Problems and Social Welfare Orderings

In this paper we deal with the extension of Nash bargaining theory to nonconvex problems. By focussing on the Social Welfare Ordering associated with a bargaining solution, we characterize the symmetric Nash Bargaining Solution (NBS). Moreover, we obtain a unified method of proof of recent characterization results for the asymmetric single-valued NBS and the symmetric multivalued NBS, as well as their extensions to different domains.