Skip to main content

A General Dynamic Model of Bargaining — The Perfect Information Case

  • Conference paper
Advances in Optimization and Control

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems ((LNE,volume 302))

  • 316 Accesses

Abstract

Nash (1950, 1953) isolated a particular cooperative solution for bargaining, first by axiomatization, and then by identifying it with an equilibrium of a noncooperative game. Regarding the latter game as artificial, Rubinstein (1982) obtained a unique perfect equilibrium in a more realistic, multi-stage, noncooperative model. His solution is Pareto efficient. To remove several possible objections, Binmore (1982, 1985) derived the limit form for the Rubinstein solution, letting the length of each stage approach zero.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J. (1969), The Organization of Economic Activity: Issues Pertinent to the Choice of Market versus Nonmarket Allocation, in Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress, The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: The PPB System, Vol. 1, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Binmore, K. G. (1980), Nash Bargaining Theory II, Theoretical Economics, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Binmore, K. G. (1982), Perfect Equilibria in Bargaining Models, Theoretical Economics, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, S. F.-H., and Leitmann, G. (1980), Labor-management Bargaining Modified as a Dynamic Game, Optimal Control, Applications and Methods, 1, 11–25.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Clemhout, S., Leitmann, G., and H. Y. Wan, Jr. (1975), Bargaining under Strike; a Differential Game View, Journal of Economic Theory, 11, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Clemhout, S., Leitmann, G., and H. Y. Wan, Jr. (1976), Equilibrium Patterns for Bargaining under Strike: a Differential Game Model, in Ho, Y. C., and S. K. Mitter eds., Directions in Large Scale Systems, Plenum, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fellner, William (1965), Competition among the Few, Kelly, N. Y., NY.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Foster, J. E. and H. Y. Wan, Jr. (1984), Involuntary Unemployment as a Principal-agent Equilibrium, American Economic Review, 74, 476–84.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J. (1983), Sequential Bargaining with Incomplete Information, Review of Economic Studies, 50, 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Harsanyi, J. C. (1956), Approaches to the Bargaining Problem, before and after the Theory of Games, Econometrica, 24, 144–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Haurie, A., Tolwinski, B., and Leitmann, G. (1983), Cooperative Equilibria in Differential Games, Proceedings of the American Control Conference, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Leitmann, G. and Liu, P. T. (1974a), A Differential Game Model of Labor-management Negotiation during a Strike, Journal of Optimization, Theory and Applications, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leitmann, G. and Liu, P. T. (1974b), Errata Corrige, A Differential Game Model of Labor-management Negotiation during a Strike, Journal of Optimization, Theory and Applications, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nash, J. (1950), The Bargaining Problem, Econometrica, 18, 155–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nash, J. (1953), Two-person Cooperative Games, Econometrica, 21, 128–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Reynolds, Lloyd (1978), Labor Economics and Labor Relations, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Radner, Roy (1981), Monitoring Cooperative Agreements in a Repeated Principal-Agent Relationship, Econometrica, 49, 1127–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rubinstein, A. (1982), Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model, Econometrica, 50, 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rubinstein, A. and Yaari, M. E. (1983), Repeated Insurance Contracts and Moral Hazard, Journal of Economic Theory, 30, 74–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Selten, R. (1975), Re-examination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games, International Journal of Game Theory, 4, 25–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1988 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Clemhout, S., Wan, H.Y. (1988). A General Dynamic Model of Bargaining — The Perfect Information Case. In: Eiselt, H.A., Pederzoli, G. (eds) Advances in Optimization and Control. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 302. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46629-8_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46629-8_21

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-18962-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-46629-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics