Skip to main content
Log in

A Dynamic Foundation of the Rawlsian Maxmin Criterion

  • Published:
Dynamic Games and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper rigorously examines a dynamic foundation of the maxmin criterion (also known as Rawlsian criterion), which selects a social outcome that maximizes the payoff of the worst-off agent. A society is populated with two types of equal and finite numbers of agents, row and column. When two agents, one from each type, are matched, a pair of non-transferable payoffs is drawn from a compact and convex set, and they simultaneously choose whether or not to agree to initiate a long term relationship. They actually form the relationship if they both agree to do so; otherwise, they obtain their respective disagreement payoffs and return to their respective pools of agents, waiting for the next period for a new match. Those who form a long term relationship can unilaterally choose to terminate their relationship in later periods, while if both agree to continue the relationship, they can do so with a high probability less than one. If their relationship is broken, they return to their respective pools as described above.

We focus on the outcomes sustained by a threshold decision rule slightly perturbed to incorporate sympathy in the spirit of Hume (A treatise of human nature. Oxford philosophical texts. Oxford University Press, London, 1978). For a general class of two person games, as the probability of continuing the long term relationship converges to 1, all agents in the economy almost always play the strongly Pareto efficient Rawlsian outcome, the most egalitarian outcome among strongly Pareto efficient outcomes. The Rawlsian criterion is generated through repeated long term interactions among agents in a decentralized fashion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bendor J, Mookherjee D, Ray D (2007) Reinforcement learning in repeated interaction games. BE J Theor Econ 1(1)

  2. Burdett K, Wright R (1998) Two-sided search with nontransferable utility. Rev Econ Dyn 1(1):220–245

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Camerer CF (2003) Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Cho I-K, Matsui A (2005) Learning aspiration in repeated games. J Econ Theory 124(2)

  5. Cho I-K, Matsui A (2011) A search theoretic foundation of Nash bargaining solution. University of Illinois Press/University of Tokyo Press, Champaign/Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fujiwara-Greve T, Okuno-Fujiwara M (2009) Voluntarily separable repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Rev Econ Stud 76:993–1021

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Ghosh P, Ray D (1996) Cooperation in community interaction without information flows. Rev Econ Stud 63:491–519

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Gul F, Pesendorfer W (2008) The case for mindless economics. In: Caplin A, Schotter A (eds) The foundations of positive and normative economics. Oxford University Press, London, pp 3–39

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hume D (1978) A treatise of human nature. Oxford philosophical texts. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  10. Karandikar R, Mookherjee D, Ray D, Vega-Redondo F (1998) Evolving aspirations and cooperation. J Econ Theory 80(2):292–331

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Kushner HJ, Yin GG (1997) Stochastic approximation algorithms and applications. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Mortensen DT, Pissarides CA (1994) Job creation and job destruction in the theory of unemployment. Rev Econ Stud 208:397–415

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nash JF (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18(2):155–162

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Osborne MJ, Rubinstein A (1998) Games with procedurally rational players. Am Econ Rev 88(4):834–847

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rasinski KA, Berktold J, Smith TW, Albertson BL (2002) America recovers: a follow-up to a national study of public response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. NORC

  16. Roth AE, Prasnikar V, Okuno-Fujiwara M, Zamir S (1991) Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh and Tokyo: an experimental study. Am Econ Rev 81(5):1068–1095

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rubinstein A (1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50(1):97–110

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Rubinstein A, Wolinsky A (1985) Equilibrium in a market with sequential bargaining. Econometrica 53:1133–1150

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Simon H (1987) Models of man. Continuity in administrative science. Ancestral books in the management of organizations. Garland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ståhl I (1972) Bargaining theory. Stockh Sch Econ

  21. Yamamori T, Kato K, Kawagoe T, Matsui A (2008) Voice matters in a dictator game. Exp Econ 11:336–343

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Young P (1993) An evolutionary model of bargaining. J Econ Theory 59:145–168

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akihiko Matsui.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cho, IK., Matsui, A. A Dynamic Foundation of the Rawlsian Maxmin Criterion. Dyn Games Appl 2, 51–70 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13235-011-0026-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13235-011-0026-3

Keywords

Navigation