Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Theory and Decision Library ((TDLC,volume 9))

  • 172 Accesses

Abstract

Both foregoing chapters dealt with solutions depending on only local properties of the Pareto optimal subset of a bargaining game. Chapter 2 extensively discussed nonsymmetric Nash bargaining solutions, and chapter 3 led us to conclude that, at least for the case of two players and in the presence of Pareto optimality and (feasible set) continuity, the independence of irrelevant alternatives axiom implies the maximization of a strongly monotonic, strongly quasiconcave function (corollary 3.21, lemma 3.18): again a quite local phenomenon. The localization axiom (LOC) explicitly expresses this solution property (see section 2.5). As remarked at the end of subsection 2.5.2, feasible set continuity of a solution suffices to imply the equivalence of IIA and LOC. Thus, it is not surprising that the critical discussion in the literature has focussed on this localization property of the symmetric Nash bargaining solution, and on the IIA axiom.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Luce and Raiffa (1957, p. 133) then conclude that this again would be a violation of IIA.. This conclusion is overhasty since the agreed upon outcome in S might be a point not in T, and then IIA. does not apply. From chapter 3, however, we know that under reasonable additional assumptions a violation of HA does follow.

    Google Scholar 

  2. An axiom like SMON heavily relies on the so-called “welfarism” assumption discussed in subsection 1.3.1. An underlying assumption one should at least make is that in all games under consideration each individual is using the same multiplicity scale for his utility function (cf. Kalai, 1977b).

    Google Scholar 

  3. This solution was suggested by Walter Bossert, private communication.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peters, H.J.M. (1992). Monotonicity properties. In: Axiomatic Bargaining Game Theory. Theory and Decision Library, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8022-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8022-9_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4178-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8022-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics