Abstract
We study two alternative definitions of the bargaining set in large (atomless) economies; the local bargaining by MasColell (1989) and the global bargaining set by Vind (1992). We alter these definitions to limit the size of the permitted size of the involved coalitions. It turns out that the local bargaining set becomes very large, whereas the global bargaining set is unaltered.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aumann RJ (1964) Markets with a contimum of traders. Econometrica 32:39–50
Aumann RJ (1973) Disadvantageous monopolies. J of Economic Theory 6:1–11
Aumann RJ, Maschler M (1964) The bargaining set for cooperative games. In: Drescher M, Shapley LS, Tucker AW (eds) Advances in game theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton 443–476
Grodal B (1986) Bargaining sets and walrasian allocations for atomless economies with incomplete preferences. Mimeo, Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, Berkeley.
Mas-Colell A (1989) An equivalence theorem for a bargaining set. J of Mathematical Economics 18:129–139
Schmeidler D (1972) A remark on the core of an atomless economy. Econometrica 40:579–580
Vind K (1964) Edgeworth-allocations in an exchange economy with many traders. International Economic Review 5:165–177
Vind K (1992) Two characterizations of bargaining sets. J of Mathematical Economics 21:89–97
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The topic of this paper was suggested to us by Karl Vind during his lectures in “Mathematical Economics” at the Institute of Economics in Copenhagen. We would also like to thank Michael Maschler, Karl Vind and two annonymous referees for corrections and useful suggestions to earlier versions of this paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schjødt, U., Sloth, B. Bargaining sets with small coalitions. Int J Game Theory 23, 49–55 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01242846
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01242846