Solutions for some bargaining games under the Harsanyi-Selten solution theory,part I: Theoretical preliminaries

Part I of this paper discusses the problem of how to model bargaining behavior, and outlines a few basic ideas of the Harsanyi-Selten solution theory. In particular, we discuss removal of imperfect equilibrium points from the game by using the uniformly perturbed game form. We also describe definition of the solution in terms of payoff-dominance and risk-dominance relations, and in terms of the net strategic distances, between the primitive equilibrium points. Part II of the paper will discuss the actual solutions our theory provides for some important classes of bargaining games.     

Stationary perfect equilibria of an n-person noncooperative bargaining game and cooperative solution concepts

This paper characterizes the stationary (subgame) perfect equilibria of an n-person noncooperative bargaining model with characteristic functions, and provides strategic foundations of some cooperative solution concepts such as the core, the bargaining set and the kernel. The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, we show that a linear programming formulation successfully characterizes the stationary (subgame) perfect equilibria of our bargaining game. We suggest a linear programming formulation as an algorithm for the stationary (subgame) perfect equilibria of a class of n-person noncooperative games. Second, utilizing the linear programming formulation, we show that stationary (subgame) perfect equilibria of n-person noncooperative games provide strategic foundations for the bargaining set and the kernel.     

Threat bargaining games with a variable population

In this paper we establish links between desirable properties satisfied by familiar solutions to bargaining games with a variable population and the Nash equilibrium concept for threat bargaining games. We introduce three new concepts for equilibrium threat strategies called strategic stability, strategic monotonicity with respect to changes in the number of agents and strategic constancy. Our primary objective in this paper is to show that familiar assumptions satisfied by bargaining games with a variable population yield equilibrium threat strategies which satisfies in a very natural way the concepts we have introduced.     

Nash equilibria in optimal reinsurance bargaining

We introduce a strategic behavior in reinsurance bilateral transactions, where agents choose the risk preferences they will appear to have in the transaction. Within a wide class of risk measures, we identify agents’ strategic choices to a range of risk aversion coefficients. It is shown that at the strictly beneficial Nash equilibria, agents appear homogeneous with respect to their risk preferences. While the game does not cause any loss of total welfare gain, its allocation between agents is heavily affected by the agents’ strategic behavior. This allocation is reflected in the reinsurance premium, while the insurance indemnity remains the same in all strictly beneficial Nash equilibria. Furthermore, the effect of agents’ bargaining power vanishes through the game procedure and the agent who gets more welfare gain is the one who has an advantage in choosing the common risk aversion at the equilibrium.     

Cooperative games with stochastic payoffs

This paper introduces a new class of cooperative games arising from cooperative decision making problems in a stochastic environment. Various examples of decision making problems that fall within this new class of games are provided. For a class of games with stochastic payoffs where the preferences are of a specific type, a balancedness concept is introduced. A variant of Farkas' lemma is used to prove that the core of a game within this class is non-empty if and only if the game is balanced. Further, other types of preferences are discussed. In particular, the effects the preferences have on the core of these games are considered.     

The semireactive bargaining set of a cooperative game

The semireactive bargaining set, a solution for cooperative games, is introduced. This solution is in general a subsolution of the bargaining set and a supersolution of the reactive bargaining set. However, on various classes of transferable utility games the semireactive and the reactive bargaining set coincide. The semireactive prebargaining set on TU games can be axiomatized by one-person rationality, the reduced game property, a weak version of the converse reduced game property with respect to subgrand coalitions, and subgrand stability. Furthermore, it is shown that there is a suitable weakening of subgrand stability, which allows to characterize the prebargaining set. Replacing the reduced game by the imputation saving reduced game and employing individual rationality as an additional axiom yields characterizations of both, the bargaining set and the semireactive bargaining set. Received September 2000/Revised version June 2001     

Solutions for some bargaining games under the Harsanyi-Selten solution theory,part II: Analysis of specific bargaining games

Part II of the paper (for Part I see Harsanyi (1982)) describes the actual solutions the Harsanyi-Selten solution theory provides for some important classes of bargaining games, such as unanimity games; trade between one seller and several potential buyers; and two-person bargaining games with incomplete information on one side or on both sides. It also discusses some concepts and theorems useful in computing the solution; and explains how our concept of risk dominance enables us to analyze game situations in terms of some intuitively very compelling probabilistic (subjective-probability) considerations disallowed by classical game theory.     

拟凸对策的解

本文先引入拟凸对策的概念作为凸对策的推广,然后研究这种对策的各种解的性质。我们主要证得,当局中人数小于6或者对策的复盖严格凸时,谈判集与核心重合,核是单点集。另外,存在一个6人拟凸对策,其谈判集与核心不同。     

The reactive bargaining set: Structure, dynamics and extension to NTU games

The reactive bargaining set (Granot [1994]) is the set of outcomes for which no justified objection exists. Here, in a justified objection the objector first watches how the target tries to act (if he has such an option), and then reacts by making a profit and ruining the target's attempt to maintain his share. In this paper we explore properties of the reactive bargaining set, set up the system of inequalities that defines it, and construct a dynamic system in the sense of Stearns' transfer scheme that leads the players to this set. We also extend the definition of the reactive bargaining set toNTU games in a way that keeps it nonempty. To shed light on its nature and its relative ease of computation, we compute the reactive bargaining set for games that played important role in the game theory literature.     

时滞系统在博弈中的应用研究

演化博弈理论解决策略均衡问题是目前比较认可的好方法.对于博弈方的经验行为,还未曾研究.本文以非对称2×2的博弈问题为研究对象,建立起带有时滞的博弈系统,通过动力学相关知识,分别研究了两类系统下博弈参与者策略的稳定状态.数值模拟分析了延时给决策带来的影响.实验表明,时滞作用不改变策略的稳定状态,改变的仅是达到稳态的速率.     

多重均衡选择中的风险占优与混合策略

均衡选择理论是博弈理论的重要组成部分.风险占优均衡是人们经济决策或行为的一个主要结果.利用混合策略及其性质和“抵制”的概念,“支持”了海萨尼和泽尔腾用公理定义的风险占优概念,且具体给出了识别风险占优均衡的标准和方法,并把它们推广到对称博弈中去.最后对均衡占优的直觉概念和风险占优相冲突的一些博弈进行了类似的讨论.     

非对称心理压力下的低碳环境友好技术国际转移博弈研究

在全球积极应对和适应气候变化的背景下,研究了心理压力和信息条件因素对低碳环境友好技术(LCEFT)转让企业与受让企业决策行为的影响。通过引入对谈判区间、还价策略和不同心理压力的假设,构造了非对称信息下的LEFCT转移讨价还价博弈模型,深入分析了收益贴现参数、心理压力参数和谈判区间等因素对博弈双方报价策略、还价策略以及成交价格所产生的影响。研究表明,心理压力和信息条件都会直接影响博弈双方的报价策略、还价策略和最终的成交价格,并得出了不同信息条件下受让企业“见好就收”和“对半侃价”的还价策略。本文为受让企业在应对全球气候变化中面对不同的心理压力和信息条件所应采取何种还价策略提供了一定的决策支持。     

NEGOTIATING OVER EXTERNALITIES

We present a simple model in which two perfectly informed, risk neutral agents will not negotiate an efficient agreement to lessen the effects of an externality and for which the outcome of negotiation depends on the legal assignment of property rights. The model permits agents to pre-commit themselves to refuse to negotiate particular agenda issues. The result is obtained because we prove that one player is always made strictly worse off from the addition of side-payments to a bargaining game. Along the way, we devise a supporting hyperplane for the n-person Nash bargaining game solution. We also display a simple game which establishes that our main result holds true—for at least some games—for an array of alternative bargaining game solutions such as that of Raiffa, Kalai, and Smorodinski.     

The bargaining set of four-person balanced games

It is well known that in three-person transferable-utility cooperative games the bargaining set ℳⁱ ₁ and the core coincide for any coalition structure, provided the latter solution is not empty. In contrast, five-person totally-balanced games are discussed in the literature in which the bargaining set ℳⁱ ₁ (for the grand coalition) is larger then the core. This paper answers the equivalence question in the remaining four-person case. We prove that in any four-person game and for arbitrary coalition structure, whenever the core is not empty, it coincides with the bargaining set ℳⁱ ₁. Our discussion employs a generalization of balancedness to games with coalition structures. Received: August 2001/Revised version: April 2002     

A non-cooperative interpretation of the kernel

The purpose of the paper is to propose a bargaining game to interpret the kernel non-cooperatively. Based on the idea of the Davis-Maschler reduced game, a bilateral bargaining procedure is provided in our game model. We show that the set of all subgame perfect equilibrium outcomes of our non-cooperative game coincides with the kernel for transferable utility games.     

Coalitions and payoffs in three‐person sequential games: Initial tests of two formal models

In this paper we develop two formal models predicting coalitions and payoffs among rank striving players in a sequential three‐person game. We test the models’ predictions with data from a laboratory study of eleven male triads. Each triad plays a sequence of games; in each game a two‐person coalition forms and divides the coalition's point value between the two coalition partners. Participants know that the sequence of games will end without warning at a randomly chosen time; at the sequence's end each player's monetary payoff is a linear function of the rank of his accumulated point score, relative to those of the other members of his triad. The complexity of this situation prevents players and analysts from representing it as a single game; thus they are unable to use n‐person game theory to identify optimal strategies. Consequently, we assume that players, unable to develop strategies that are demonstrably optimal in the long run, adopt certain bargaining heuristics and surrogate short run objectives.

The two models follow the same basic outline; they differ, however, in the planning horizon they assume players to use. Proceeding from a priori assumptions concerning each player's decision calculus and the bargaining process, the two models state the probability that each coalition forms and predict the point divisions in the winning coalition. The laboratory data provide consistently strong support for the predictions of both models.     

On the implementation of the L-Nash bargaining solution in two-person bargaining games

The “Nash program” initiated by Nash (Econometrica 21:128–140, 1953) is a research agenda aiming at representing every axiomatically determined cooperative solution to a game as a Nash outcome of a reasonable noncooperative bargaining game. The L-Nash solution first defined by Forgó (Interactive Decisions. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 229. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–15, 1983) is obtained as the limiting point of the Nash bargaining solution when the disagreement point goes to negative infinity in a fixed direction. In Forgó and Szidarovszky (Eur J Oper Res 147:108–116, 2003), the L-Nash solution was related to the solution of multiciteria decision making and two different axiomatizations of the L-Nash solution were also given in this context. In this paper, finite bounds are established for the penalty of disagreement in certain special two-person bargaining problems, making it possible to apply all the implementation models designed for Nash bargaining problems with a finite disagreement point to obtain the L-Nash solution as well. For another set of problems where this method does not work, a version of Rubinstein’s alternative offer game (Econometrica 50:97–109, 1982) is shown to asymptotically implement the L-Nash solution. If penalty is internalized as a decision variable of one of the players, then a modification of Howard’s game (J Econ Theory 56:142–159, 1992) also implements the L-Nash solution.     

Nash bargaining solution under externalities

We define a Nash bargaining solution (NBS) of partition function games. Based on a partition function game, we define an extensive game, which is a propose–respond sequential bargaining game where the rejecter of a proposal exits from the game with some positive probability. We show that the NBS is supported as the expected payoff profile of any stationary subgame perfect equilibrium (SSPE) of the extensive game such that in any subgame, a coalition of all active players forms immediately. We provide a necessary and sufficient condition for such an SSPE to exist. Moreover, we consider extensions to the cases of nontransferable utilities, time discounting and multiple-coalition formation.     

A cardinal bargaining set for games without side payments

A bargaining set for games without side payments, based on cardinal considerations is introduced. It is proved that it is never empty for a fairly general class of games without side payments, that it coincides with the classical bargaining set if the game has side payments and that it is a subset of an ordinal bargaining set described inAsscher [1975a].     

Using an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma with Exit Option to Study Alliance Behavior: Results of a Tournament and Simulation

Nearly half of all strategic alliances fail (Park and Russo, 1996; Dyer et al., 2001), often because of opportunistic behavior by one party or the other. We use a tournament and simulation to study strategies in an iterated prisoner's dilemma game with exit option to shed light on how a firm should react to an opportunistic partner. Our results indicate that a firm should give an alliance partner a second chance following an opportunistic act but that subsequent behavior should be contingent on the value of the next best opportunity outside the alliance. Firms should be more forgiving if the potential benefits from the alliance exceed other opportunities. The strategies were also found to be robust across a wide range of game lengths. The implications of these results for alliance strategies are discussed. Steven E. Phelan received his PhD in economics from La Trobe University (Australia) in 1998. Following five years at the University of Texas at Dallas, he joined the faculty of the University of Nevada Las Vegas in 2003. Dr. Phelan's research interests include competitive dynamics, organizational efficiency, acquisition and alliance performance, and entrepreneurial competence. His methods of choice to study these phenomena include agent-based modelling, experimental game theory, and event studies. Prior to joining academia, Dr. Phelan held executive positions in the telecommunications and airline industries and was a principal partner in Bridges Management Group, a consultancy specializing in strategic investment decisions. Richard J. Arend is a graduate of the University of British Columbia's doctoral program in Policy Analysis and Strategy. He is on the Management faculty of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, arriving most recently from the Management faculty of New York University's Stern School of Business. Dr. Arend's interests lie in the analysis of unusual modes of firm value creation and destruction, where he has published in several top journals. He is a professional engineer with work and consulting experience in aerospace and computing. Darryl A. Seale joined the faculty of UNLV in 1999, following three years at Kent State University and the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Prior to Alabama, he completed his Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in Business Administration at the University of Arizona, his M.B.A. from Penn State University, and spent over ten years in management and market planning positions in the health care industry. Professor Seale's research interests include strategic decision making, bargaining and negotiation, and behavioral game theory. His research has been funded by the National Science Foundation and has been published in top-tier journals including Management Science, OBHDP, Games and Economic Behavior, and Strategic Management Journal. His teaching interests include business policy/strategy, managerial decision making, and bargaining and negotiation.