Advertisement

Modelling Multi-Issue Negotiation

  • May Tajima
  • Niall M. Fraser
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 465)

Abstract

Multi-issue (criteria) negotiation belongs to a domain of relatively new research area which deals with both multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) and multiple participant decision making (MPDM). Its trade-off process is modelled using logrolling in order to achieve integrative solutions. Logrolling is the exchange of loss in some issues for gain in others resulting in mutual gain. Since the trade-offs among issues are also the trade-offs among negotiating parties, the solution approach using logrolling attempts to deal with MCDM and MPDM simultaneously. This study considers two-issue two-party negotiation. It is shown that logrolling is always possible except for one special case. Logrolling does not suggest a unique solution to multi-issue negotiation, but it can provide an efficient frontier which is shown to be linear or piecewise linear when the parties’ value functions are linear. Characteristics of the Nash bargaining solution are also determined.

Keywords

Negotiation multiple criteria decision making integrative bargaining logrolling trade-offs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1996), Webster On-Line Dictionary, [Online]. Available www: www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/cgi-bin/uwonly/webster.cgi ?word=logrollingGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernholz, P. (1973), "Logrolling, Arrow Paradox and cyclical majorities", Public Choice, 15, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Froman, L.A., Jr. and M.D. Cohen (1970), "Compromise and logroll: comparing the efficiency of two bargaining processes", Behavioral Science, 15, 180–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Keeney, R. and H. Raiffa (1976), Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences andValue Tradeoffs, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Miller, N.R. (1977), "Logrolling, vote trading, and the paradox of voting: a game-the oretical overview", Public Choice, 30(0), 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Nash, J.F. (1950), ’The bargaining problem", Econometrica, 18, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pruitt, D.G. (1983), "Achieving integrative agreements", in M.H. Bazerman and R.J. Lewicki (eds.), Negotiating in Organizations, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 35–50.Google Scholar
  8. Pruitt, D.G. (1981), Negotiating Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Roloff, M.E. and J.M. Jordan (1991), "The influence of effort, experience, and persistence on the elements of bargaining plans", Communication Research, 18(3), 306–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Thompson, L. (1990), "Negotiation behavior and outcomes: empirical evidence and the oretical issues", Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 515–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tullock, G. (1959), "Problems of majority voting", Journal of Political Economy, 67, 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • May Tajima
    • 1
  • Niall M. Fraser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management SciencesUniversity of WaterlooWaterloo, OntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations