Advertisement

Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 201–210 | Cite as

An axiomatization of the Nash bargaining solution

  • Geoffroy de Clippel
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

I prove that ‘Disagreement Point Convexity’ and ‘Midpoint Domination’ characterize the Nash bargaining solution on the class of two-player bargaining problems and on the class of smooth bargaining problems. I propose an example to show that these two axioms do not characterize the Nash bargaining solution on the class of bargaining problems with more than two players. I prove that the other solutions that satisfy these two properties are not lower hemi-continuous. These different results refine the analysis of Chun (Econ Lett 34:311–316, 1990). I also highlight a rather unexpected link with the result of Dagan et al. (Soc Choice Welfare 19:811–823, 2002).

Keywords

Disagreement Point Pareto Frontier Bargaining Solution Bargaining Problem Nash Bargaining Solution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chun Y (1990) Minimal cooperation in bargaining. Econ Lett 34:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chun Y, Thomson W (1990) Nash solution and uncertain disagreement points. Games Econ Behav 2:213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dagan N, Volij O, Winter E (2002) A characterization of the Nash bargaining solution. Soc Choice Welfare 19:811–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Harsanyi JC (1959) A bargaining model for the cooperative n-person games. In: Tucker AW, Luce RD (eds) Contributions to the theory of Games IV. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 325–355Google Scholar
  5. Kalai E, Smorodinsky M (1975) Other solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem. Econometrica 43:513–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Luce RD, Raiffa H (1957) Games and decisions. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Moulin H (1983) Le choix social utilitariste. Ecole Politechnique DPGoogle Scholar
  8. Myerson RB (1991) Game theory (analysis of conflict). Harvard University press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Nash JF (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Peters H, van Damme E (1991) Characterizing the Nash and Raiffa bargaining solutions by disagreement point axioms. Math Oper Res 16:447–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shapley LS (1969) Utility comparison and the theory of games. In: La Decision, Editions du CNRS, pp 251–263Google Scholar
  12. Thomson W (1994) Cooperative models of bargaining. In: Aumann RJ, Hart S (eds) Handbook of game theory. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1237–1284Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations