Glossary

11.5 Bargaining theory and the Nash bargaining solution

3 min read•august 16, 2024

Bargaining theory examines how parties negotiate to reach mutually beneficial agreements. It considers factors like , , and that shape outcomes. This topic builds on game theory concepts to analyze strategic interactions in negotiations.

The offers a mathematical approach to resolve two-person bargaining problems. It maximizes the product of players' utility gains relative to disagreement points, balancing efficiency and fairness. This solution helps predict and evaluate negotiation outcomes in various real-world scenarios.

Bargaining Models: Key Elements and Assumptions

Foundations of Bargaining Theory

Top images from around the web for Foundations of Bargaining Theory

  • The Labor Relations Process | OpenStax Intro to Business View original

    Is this image relevant?

  • Bargaining Problem: Does Disagreement Point Result from Value Control or Value Deprivation ... View original

    Is this image relevant?

  • The Labor Relations Process | OpenStax Intro to Business View original

    Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Foundations of Bargaining Theory

  • The Labor Relations Process | OpenStax Intro to Business View original

    Is this image relevant?

  • Bargaining Problem: Does Disagreement Point Result from Value Control or Value Deprivation ... View original

    Is this image relevant?

  • The Labor Relations Process | OpenStax Intro to Business View original

    Is this image relevant?

1 of 3
  • Bargaining theory analyzes negotiation situations between two or more parties seeking mutually beneficial agreements
  • encompasses all individually rational and Pareto efficient outcomes
    • Forms the basis for potential agreements
    • Defines the range of possible negotiation results
  • Bargaining power influences negotiation outcomes
    • Affected by factors such as patience, risk tolerance, and outside options
    • Example: A job seeker with multiple offers has greater bargaining power when negotiating salary
  • Time preferences and discount factors impact dynamic bargaining models
    • Shape the urgency to reach an agreement
    • Example: In real estate negotiations, a seller facing foreclosure may have a higher discount factor

Information and Strategic Behavior in Bargaining

  • Asymmetric information leads to strategic behavior in negotiations
    • Can result in bluffing or signaling to gain advantage
    • Example: Used car sales where the seller has more information about the vehicle's condition
  • Credible threats and commitments influence bargaining outcomes
    • Allow parties to strategically shape negotiation results
    • Example: A labor union threatening to strike to secure better working conditions
  • Axiomatic approaches provide a framework for "fair" bargaining solutions
    • Nash's framework outlines desirable properties for equitable outcomes
    • Helps in evaluating and comparing different bargaining solutions

Nash Bargaining Solution: Solving and Interpreting

Mathematical Formulation and Axioms

  • Nash bargaining solution offers a unique resolution to two-person bargaining problems
  • Maximizes the product of players' utility gains relative to disagreement points
    • Represented mathematically as: max⁡(x,y)(u1(x)−d1)(u2(y)−d2)\max_{(x,y)} (u_1(x) - d_1)(u_2(y) - d_2)
    • Where (x,y)(x,y) is the bargaining outcome, (u1,u2)(u_1,u_2) are , and (d1,d2)(d_1,d_2) are disagreement points
  • Nash's four axioms for bargaining solutions include:
    • : No alternative outcome can improve both players' utilities
    • Symmetry: Identical players receive equal payoffs
    • Independence of irrelevant alternatives: Removing non-chosen alternatives doesn't affect the solution
    • Invariance to affine transformations: Solution is unaffected by changes in utility scale

Properties and Implications of Nash Bargaining Solution

  • represents the outcome if negotiations fail
    • Significantly influences the bargaining solution
    • Example: In divorce settlements, each party's financial independence affects the final agreement
  • Exhibits individual
    • Ensures each player receives at least their disagreement payoff
    • Provides a minimum threshold for participation in negotiations
  • Balances efficiency and fairness
    • Selects Pareto efficient outcomes
    • Considers relative bargaining positions of players
  • Comparative statics reveal how changes affect negotiated outcomes
    • Alterations in bargaining power, disagreement points, or feasible set impact results
    • Example: Improving a country's trade alternatives strengthens its position in international negotiations

Bargaining Theory: Applying to Real-World Negotiations

Economic and Business Applications

  • Labor negotiations utilize bargaining theory to explain wage determination
    • Helps understand the dynamics of collective bargaining
    • Example: Teachers' unions negotiating salaries and benefits with school districts
  • International trade agreements analyzed through bargaining models
    • Elucidates distribution of gains from trade
    • Example: NAFTA negotiations between the United States, Canada, and Mexico
  • Merger and acquisition processes examined using bargaining theory
    • Explains how different factors influence final deal terms
    • Example: Distribution of synergies in the merger of two tech companies
  • Consumer haggling in markets without fixed prices
    • Bargaining theory provides insights into price negotiations
    • Example: Negotiating prices in a bazaar or flea market

Political and Social Applications

  • Legislative negotiations and coalition formation analyzed using bargaining models
    • Predicts outcomes in policy-making processes
    • Example: Budget negotiations between political parties in a coalition government
  • Conflict resolution and peace negotiations examined through bargaining theory
    • Highlights importance of credible commitments and third-party mediation
    • Example: Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and the role of international mediators
  • Family economics utilizes bargaining theory to analyze household decision-making
    • Provides framework for understanding division of household labor
    • Example: Couples negotiating childcare responsibilities and career decisions

Key Terms to Review (20)

Alternating offers: Alternating offers refer to a bargaining process where two parties take turns making proposals to each other, aiming to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. This process involves each party making an offer and the other party responding with a counteroffer, allowing for a dynamic interaction that can lead to negotiation outcomes aligned with both parties' interests. Alternating offers are key in understanding bargaining theory, as they highlight the strategic nature of negotiations and relate closely to concepts like the Nash bargaining solution.
Bargaining power: Bargaining power refers to the relative ability of parties involved in a negotiation to influence the outcome in their favor. This power can stem from various factors such as available alternatives, the urgency of needs, and the perceived importance of each party's contributions. Understanding bargaining power is crucial for analyzing how agreements are reached and how resources are allocated in situations involving mutual interdependence.
Bargaining Set: The bargaining set is a concept in game theory that refers to the collection of outcomes that are achievable through negotiation between two or more parties. It includes all the agreements that are Pareto optimal, meaning no party can be made better off without making another worse off, and highlights the potential for conflict resolution through mutual agreement and compromise.
Commitment strategies: Commitment strategies are tactics used by individuals or groups in bargaining situations to signal their intentions and willingness to stick to a particular course of action, even in the face of future incentives to deviate. These strategies help establish credibility and can influence the negotiation dynamics by shaping the expectations and behaviors of the other parties involved. By committing to certain actions or outcomes, parties can create a more predictable environment that facilitates agreement and cooperation.
Complete information: Complete information refers to a situation where all parties involved in an economic transaction or negotiation have full access to all relevant information. This concept is crucial for ensuring that decision-making processes are efficient and equitable, leading to optimal outcomes in both market settings and bargaining scenarios. When complete information is present, individuals can make well-informed choices that reflect their true preferences and constraints.
Disagreement point: The disagreement point is the outcome that parties in a negotiation would face if they cannot reach an agreement. This point acts as a baseline for what each party can expect if negotiations fail, influencing their strategies and concessions during bargaining. The existence of a disagreement point emphasizes the importance of finding a mutually beneficial solution to avoid this undesirable outcome.
Equal Division: Equal division refers to the concept of splitting a total resource, benefit, or outcome equally among all parties involved in a bargaining scenario. This principle is significant in bargaining theory as it often represents a baseline or fairness norm that parties may use to evaluate their negotiations. In the context of the Nash bargaining solution, equal division can be considered a special case where both parties have equal power and utility levels, leading to outcomes that reflect an equitable distribution of benefits.
Equilibrium outcomes: Equilibrium outcomes refer to the state in a bargaining scenario where no party has an incentive to deviate from their current strategy, as all available gains from trade have been fully realized. This concept is crucial in understanding how parties negotiate and come to a mutually beneficial agreement, where their respective preferences and utilities are optimized. In the context of bargaining theory, equilibrium outcomes highlight the balance achieved through negotiation processes, reflecting the underlying principles of rational choice and strategic interaction.
Fair division: Fair division is a principle that ensures resources are allocated among individuals in a way that each person feels they have received their fair share. This concept plays a crucial role in bargaining scenarios, where parties negotiate to reach an agreement that reflects their interests while ensuring that the outcomes are perceived as equitable.
Information Asymmetry: Information asymmetry occurs when one party in a transaction has more or better information than the other party, leading to an imbalance in decision-making. This situation can create market failures, affect bargaining outcomes, and contribute to problems like adverse selection, where the party with less information makes suboptimal choices based on the limited knowledge they possess.
John Nash: John Nash was an influential mathematician and economist best known for his contributions to game theory, particularly the concept of Nash equilibrium. His work revolutionized the understanding of strategic interactions among rational decision-makers, impacting various fields including economics, political science, and biology. Nash's theories provide a framework for analyzing how individuals or firms can optimize their decisions in competitive environments, such as cartels and bargaining scenarios.
Lloyd Shapley: Lloyd Shapley was an influential mathematician and economist known for his contributions to game theory, particularly in bargaining theory and the formulation of the Shapley value. His work provides a framework for understanding how parties can negotiate and reach mutually beneficial agreements. Shapley's insights laid the groundwork for developing the Nash bargaining solution, which seeks to identify fair outcomes in situations where individuals or groups engage in bargaining.
Nash Bargaining Solution: The Nash Bargaining Solution is a solution concept in bargaining theory that determines how two parties can reach an agreement that maximizes their combined benefits while ensuring both parties receive at least their reservation utility. This solution is rooted in cooperative game theory and emphasizes fairness and efficiency in negotiations, making it a crucial framework for understanding how individuals or groups can resolve conflicts through mutual agreement.
Pareto Efficiency: Pareto efficiency refers to a situation in which it is impossible to make any individual better off without making someone else worse off. This concept is central to understanding resource allocation and welfare economics, as it helps to identify optimal distribution of resources in various economic settings. In the context of competition and market dynamics, Pareto efficiency highlights the conditions under which markets can operate effectively and allocate resources in a way that maximizes overall utility without harming others.
Rationality: Rationality refers to the behavior of individuals making decisions that maximize their utility or satisfaction based on their preferences and available information. It is a foundational concept in economics that assumes individuals act logically and consistently to achieve their goals, often leading to optimal outcomes in various scenarios. This notion plays a crucial role in understanding how resources are allocated efficiently, how strategic interactions unfold, and how agreements are reached in negotiations.
Sequential bargaining: Sequential bargaining is a negotiation process where participants make offers and counteroffers in a predetermined order rather than simultaneously. This format allows one party to respond to the other’s proposals in a structured manner, influencing the strategies and outcomes of the negotiation. In such scenarios, each participant must consider not only their own interests but also the likely responses of their opponents based on prior offers.
Strategic Moves: Strategic moves are actions taken by players in a game or negotiation to influence the outcome in their favor. These moves are often designed to shape the expectations and behaviors of other players, creating a competitive advantage or ensuring a more favorable bargaining position. Understanding strategic moves is crucial for effectively navigating scenarios involving negotiation and bargaining outcomes.
Time Preferences: Time preferences refer to the relative valuation individuals place on receiving goods or services at different points in time, influencing their decision-making regarding consumption, savings, and investments. This concept highlights how people may favor immediate rewards over future ones, affecting their behavior in various economic situations such as intertemporal choices and negotiations.
Utility functions: Utility functions represent a way to quantify the satisfaction or pleasure that a consumer derives from consuming a good or service. They are fundamental in understanding consumer preferences and help economists model choices and behaviors based on the level of utility derived from different combinations of goods. This concept is especially relevant in negotiations and bargaining scenarios, where each party seeks to maximize their utility.
Win-win solution: A win-win solution refers to a mutually beneficial agreement or outcome where all parties involved gain something of value, leading to a satisfactory resolution for everyone. This concept emphasizes cooperation and negotiation, aiming to satisfy the interests of all participants rather than allowing one side to dominate the other. In bargaining scenarios, achieving a win-win solution is often ideal as it fosters long-term relationships and encourages future collaboration.
© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.
AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.
Back
Practice QuizGlossary
Practice QuizGlossary
Next guide