A Theory Of Disagreement In Bargaining

The strategies are presented in the Nash demand game by a pair (x, y). x and y are selected from the interval [d, z], d being the result of the disagreement and z being the total quantity of good. If x + y is equal to or smaller than z, the first player gets x and the second y. Otherwise, both receive d; often d = 0 {displaystyle d=0}. For a global discussion of Nash`s negotiated solution and the extensive literature on the theory and application of negotiation – including a discussion of the classic Rubinstein model of negotiation – see Abhinay Muthoo`s book Bargaining Theory and Application. [5] A series of experimental studies[10] failed to consistently support any of the negotiation models. While some participants achieved similar results to the models, others did not and instead focused on conceptually simple solutions that are beneficial to both parties. The Nash equilibrium was the most common chord (mode), but the mean (mean) concordance was closer to a point based on the expected utility. [11] In actual negotiations, participants often first look for a general negotiating formula and then elaborate only the details of such an agreement, which excludes the point of contention and instead focuses on the worst possible agreement. The independence of irrelevant alternatives can be replaced by an axiom of resource monotonity.

Ehud Kalai and Meir Smorodinsky demonstrated this. [8] This leads to the so-called Kalai-Smorodinsky negotiated solution: this is the point that maintains the ratio of maximum gains. . . .

Non classé