Cooperative bargaining

The bargaining game or Nash bargaining game is a simple two-player game used to model bargaining interactions. In the Nash Bargaining Game two players demand a portion of some good (usually some amount of money). If the total amount requested by the players is less than that available, both players get their request. If their total request is greater than that available. A Nash bargaining solution is a (Pareto efficient) solution to a Nash bargaining game. According to Walker (2005), Nash's bargaining solution was shown to be the same (by John Harsanyi) as Zeuthen's 1930 solution of the bargaining problem published in the book Problems of Monopoly and Economic Warfare.

The two person bargaining problem is a problem of understanding how two agents should cooperate when non-cooperation leads to Pareto-inefficient results. It is in essence an equilibrium selection problem; Many games have multiple equilibria with varying payoffs for each player, forcing the players to negotiate on which equilibrium to target. The quintessential example of such a game is the Ultimatum game. The underlying assumption of bargaining theory is that the resulting solution should be the same solution an impartial arbitrator would recommend. Solutions to bargaining come in two flavors: an axiomatic approach where desired properties of a solution are satisfied and a strategic approach where the bargaining procedure is modeled in detail as a sequential game.

An example

	Opera	Football
Opera	3,2	0,0
Football	0,0	2,3
Battle of the Sexes 1

The Battle of the Sexes, as shown, is a two player coordination game. Both Opera/Opera and Football/Football are Nash equilibria. Any probability distribution over these two Nash equilibria is a correlated equilibrium. The question then becomes which of the infinite possible equilibria should be chosen by the two players. If they disagree and choose different distributions then they will fail to coordinate and likely receive 0 payoffs. In this symmetric case the natural choice is to play Opera/Opera and Football/Football with even probability. Indeed all bargaining solutions described below prescribe this solution. However if the game is asymmetric (for example Football/Football instead yields payoffs of 2,5) the appropriate distribution becomes less clear. Bargaining theory solves this problem.

The Formal Description

A two person bargain problem consists of a disagreement point $v$ (also known as a threat point) and a feasibility set $F$ . $v=(v_{1},v_{2})$ , where $v_{1}$ and $v_{2}$ are the payoffs after disagreement to player 1 and player 2 respectively. $F$ is a closed convex subset of ${\textbf {R}}^{2}$ representing the set of possible agreements. $F$ is convex because an agreement could take the form of a correlated combination of other agreements. Points in $F$ must all be better than the disagreement point as there is no sense to an agreement which is worse than disagreement. The goal of bargaining is to choose the feasible agreement $\phi$ in $F$ that would result after thorough negotiations.

Feasibility Set

The set of possible agreements $F$ depends on if there is an outside regulator affording binding contracts. When binding contracts are allowed any joint action is playable so the feasibility set consists of all attainable payoffs better than the disagreement point. When binding contracts are not allowed the game is said to have moral hazard (as players can defect) and thus the feasibility set only consists of correlated equilibrium, which need no enforcement.

Disagreement Point

The disagreement point $v$ is the value the players can expect to receive if negotiations break down and no bargain can be reached. Naively this could just be some focal equilibrium which both players could expect to play. However, this point directly affects eventual bargaining solution, so it stands to reason that each player should attempt to choose their disagreement points in order to maximize their bargaining position. Towards this goal, it is often advantageous to simultaneously increase one’s own disagreement payoff while harming one’s opponent's disagreement payoff - hence this point is often known as the threat point. If threats are viewed as actions then we can construct a separate game where each player chooses a threat and receives a payoff according to the outcome of bargaining. This is known as Nash’s variable threat game. Alternatively each player could play a minimax strategy in case of disagreement, choosing to disregard personal reward in order to hurt the opponent as much as possible if they leave the bargaining table.

Equilibrium analysis

Strategies are represented in the Nash bargaining game by a pair (x, y). x and y are selected from the interval [d, z], where z is the total good. If x + y is equal to or less than z, the first player receives x and the second y. Otherwise both get d. d here represents the disagreement point or the threat of the game; often $d=0$ .

There are many Nash equilibria in the Nash bargaining game. Any x and y such that x + y = z is a Nash equilibrium. If either player increases their demand, both players receive nothing. If either reduces their demand they will receive less than if they had demanded x or y. There is also a Nash equilibrium where both players demand the entire good. Here both players receive nothing, but neither player can increase their return by unilaterally changing their strategy.

Bargaining Solutions

Various solutions have been proposed based on slightly different assumptions about what properties are desired for the final agreement point.

Nash bargaining solution

John Nash proposed that a solution should satisfy certain axioms:

Invariant to affine transformations or Invariant to equivalent utility representations
Pareto optimality
Independence of irrelevant alternatives
Symmetry

Let us call u the utility function for player 1, v the utility function for player 2. Under these conditions, rational agents will choose what is known as the Nash bargaining solution. Namely, they will seek to maximize $|u(x)-u(d)||v(y)-v(d)|$ , where $u(d)$ and $v(d)$ , are the status quo utilities (i.e. the utility obtained if one decides not to bargain with the other player). The product of the two excess utilities is generally referred to as the Nash product.

Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution

Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives can be substituted with an appropriate monotonicity condition, thus providing a different solution for the class of bargaining problems. This alternative solution has been introduced by Ehud Kalai and Meir Smorodinsky. It is the point which maintains the ratios of maximal gains. In other words, if player 1 could receive a maximum of $g_{1}$ with player 2’s help (and vice-versa for $g_{2}$ ), then the Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution would yield the point $\phi$ on the Pareto frontier such that $\phi _{1}/\phi _{2}=g_{1}/g_{2}$ .

Egalitarian bargaining solution

The egalitarian bargaining solution, introduced by Ehud Kalai, is a third solution which drops the condition of scale invariance while including both the axiom of Independence of irrelevant alternatives, and the axiom of monotonicity. It is the solution which attempts to grant equal gain to both parties. In other words, it is the point which maximizes the minimum payoff among players.

Applications

Some philosophers and economists have recently used the Nash bargaining game to explain the emergence of human attitudes toward distributive justice (Alexander 2000; Alexander and Skyrms 1999; Binmore 1998, 2005). These authors primarily use evolutionary game theory to explain how individuals come to believe that proposing a 50-50 split is the only just solution to the Nash Bargaining Game.

References

Alexander, Jason McKenzie (2000). "Evolutionary Explanations of Distributive Justice". Philosophy of Science. 67 (3): 490–516.
Alexander, Jason; Skyrms, Brian (1999). "Bargaining with Neighbors: Is Justice Contagious". Journal of Philosophy. 96 (11): 588–598.
Binmore, K.; Rubinstein, A.; Wolinsky, A. (1986). "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling". RAND Journal of Economics. 17: 176–188.
Binmore, Kenneth (1998). Game Theory and The Social Contract Volume 2: Just Playing. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 0262024446.
Binmore, Kenneth (2005). Natural Justice. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195178114.
Kalai, Ehud (1977). "Proportional solutions to bargaining situations: Intertemporal utility comparisons". Econometrica. 45 (7): 1623–1630.
Kalai, Ehud; Smorodinsky, Meir (1975). "Other solutions to Nash's bargaining problem". Econometrica. 43 (3): 513–518. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
Nash, John (1950). "The Bargaining Problem". Econometrica. 18 (2): 155–162.
Walker, Paul (2005). "History of Game Theory".

External links

Nash Bargaining Solutions

v t e Topics of game theory
Definitions	Congestion game Cooperative game Determinacy Escalation of commitment Extensive-form game First-player and second-player win Game complexity Graphical game Hierarchy of beliefs Information set Normal-form game Preference Sequential game Simultaneous game Simultaneous action selection Solved game Succinct game Mechanism design
Equilibrium concepts	Bayes correlated equilibrium Bayesian Nash equilibrium Berge equilibrium Core Correlated equilibrium Coalition-proof Nash equilibrium Epsilon-equilibrium Evolutionarily stable strategy Gibbs equilibrium Mertens-stable equilibrium Markov perfect equilibrium Nash equilibrium Pareto efficiency Perfect Bayesian equilibrium Proper equilibrium Quantal response equilibrium Quasi-perfect equilibrium Risk dominance Satisfaction equilibrium Self-confirming equilibrium Sequential equilibrium Shapley value Strong Nash equilibrium Subgame perfection Trembling hand equilibrium
Strategies	Appeasement Backward induction Bid shading Collusion Cheap talk De-escalation Deterrence Escalation Forward induction Grim trigger Markov strategy Pairing strategy Dominant strategies Pure strategy Mixed strategy Strategy-stealing argument Tit for tat
Classes of games	Auction Bargaining problem Global game Intransitive game Mean-field game n-player game Perfect information Large Poisson game Potential game Repeated game Screening game Signaling game Strictly determined game Stochastic game Symmetric game Zero-sum game
Games	Go Chess Infinite chess Checkers All-pay auction Prisoner's dilemma Gift-exchange game Optional prisoner's dilemma Traveler's dilemma Coordination game Chicken Centipede game Lewis signaling game Volunteer's dilemma Dollar auction Battle of the sexes Stag hunt Matching pennies Ultimatum game Electronic mail game Rock paper scissors Pirate game Dictator game Public goods game Blotto game War of attrition El Farol Bar problem Fair division Fair cake-cutting Bertrand competition Cournot competition Stackelberg competition Deadlock Diner's dilemma Guess 2/3 of the average Kuhn poker Nash bargaining game Induction puzzles Trust game Princess and monster game Rendezvous problem
Theorems	Aumann's agreement theorem Folk theorem Minimax theorem Nash's theorem Negamax theorem Purification theorem Revelation principle Sprague–Grundy theorem Zermelo's theorem
Key figures	Albert W. Tucker Amos Tversky Antoine Augustin Cournot Ariel Rubinstein Claude Shannon Daniel Kahneman David K. Levine David M. Kreps Donald B. Gillies Drew Fudenberg Eric Maskin Harold W. Kuhn Herbert Simon Hervé Moulin John Conway Jean Tirole Jean-François Mertens Jennifer Tour Chayes John Harsanyi John Maynard Smith John Nash John von Neumann Kenneth Arrow Kenneth Binmore Leonid Hurwicz Lloyd Shapley Melvin Dresher Merrill M. Flood Olga Bondareva Oskar Morgenstern Paul Milgrom Peyton Young Reinhard Selten Robert Axelrod Robert Aumann Robert B. Wilson Roger Myerson Samuel Bowles Suzanne Scotchmer Thomas Schelling William Vickrey
Search optimizations	Alpha–beta pruning Aspiration window Principal variation search max^n algorithm Paranoid algorithm Lazy SMP
Miscellaneous	Bounded rationality Combinatorial game theory Confrontation analysis Coopetition Evolutionary game theory Glossary of game theory List of game theorists List of games in game theory No-win situation Topological game Tragedy of the commons