Skip to main content

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

Abstract

Any book on axiomatic bargaining game theory should start with Nash’s 1950 article and with the Nash bargaining solution, and so will this one. Without any doubt the Nash bargaining solution is the most well-known and popular solution concept in bargaining — in the theoretical literature as well as in applied and empirical work. What could be the reasons for this popularity? Empirical evidence for the Nash bargaining solution certainly is not overwhelming and besides, lack of empirical results concerning other solution concepts makes any comparison difficult if not impossible. (For some empirical work see Svejnar (1986), or van Cayseele (1987).) Further, many experiments have been conducted — see Roth and Malouf (1979) for an overview — but also these are not unambiguously conclusive in favor of the Nash solution. Even, earlier experiments by Crott (1971) point in the direction of the next popular solution, the Raiffa-Kalai-Smorodinsky solution (Raiffa, 1953, Kalai and Smorodinsky, 1975; see chapter 4).

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. without loss of generality

    Google Scholar 

  2. This is obtained by first maximizing the first coordinate, conditionally on this maximizing the second coordinate, conditionally on this maximizing the third coordinate.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bargaining games in (Math) may still be derived from expected utility bargaining situations if we relax condition (iii) in definition 1.2 in the appropriate way.

    Google Scholar 

  4. This shows that MCONV does not imply CONV. The construction of an example reflecting the converse implication is left to the reader.

    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). Nash bargaining solutions. In: Axiomatic Bargaining Game Theory. Theory and Decision Library, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8022-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8022-9_2

  • 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