Collective or individual rationality in the Nash bargaining solution: efficiency-free characterizations

IF 0.5 4区 经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS Social Choice and Welfare Pub Date : 2024-03-04 DOI:10.1007/s00355-024-01513-6
Kensei Nakamura
{"title":"Collective or individual rationality in the Nash bargaining solution: efficiency-free characterizations","authors":"Kensei Nakamura","doi":"10.1007/s00355-024-01513-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the classical bargaining problem, we propose a very mild axiom of individual rationality, which we call <i>possibility of utility gain</i>. This requires that for at least one bargaining problem, there exists at least one player who reaches a higher utility level than their disagreement utility. This paper shows that the Nash solution (Nash in Econometrica 18(2):155–162, 1950) is characterized by <i>possibility of utility gain</i> and continuity with respect to feasible sets together with Nash’s axioms except <i>weak Pareto optimality</i>. We also show that in Nash’s theorem, <i>weak Pareto optimality</i> can be replaced by <i>conflict-freeness</i> (introduced by Rachmilevitch in Math Soc Sci 76(C):107–109, 2015). This demands that when the agreement most preferred by all players is feasible, this should be chosen. Furthermore, we provide alternative and unified proofs for other efficiency-free characterizations of the Nash solution. This clarifies the role of each axiom in the related results.</p>","PeriodicalId":47663,"journal":{"name":"Social Choice and Welfare","volume":"268 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Choice and Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-024-01513-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the classical bargaining problem, we propose a very mild axiom of individual rationality, which we call possibility of utility gain. This requires that for at least one bargaining problem, there exists at least one player who reaches a higher utility level than their disagreement utility. This paper shows that the Nash solution (Nash in Econometrica 18(2):155–162, 1950) is characterized by possibility of utility gain and continuity with respect to feasible sets together with Nash’s axioms except weak Pareto optimality. We also show that in Nash’s theorem, weak Pareto optimality can be replaced by conflict-freeness (introduced by Rachmilevitch in Math Soc Sci 76(C):107–109, 2015). This demands that when the agreement most preferred by all players is feasible, this should be chosen. Furthermore, we provide alternative and unified proofs for other efficiency-free characterizations of the Nash solution. This clarifies the role of each axiom in the related results.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
纳什讨价还价方案中的集体理性或个人理性:无效率特征
在经典的讨价还价问题中,我们提出了一个非常温和的个体理性公理,我们称之为效用收益的可能性。这就要求在至少一个讨价还价问题中,至少有一方的效用水平高于其分歧效用。本文表明,纳什解(纳什在《计量经济学》18(2):155-162, 1950 年)的特点是效用增益的可能性和关于可行集的连续性,以及纳什公理(弱帕累托最优性除外)。我们还证明,在纳什定理中,弱帕累托最优性可以被无冲突性(由 Rachmilevitch 在 Math Soc Sci 76(C):107-109, 2015 中提出)所取代。这就要求,当所有参与者最喜欢的协议都可行时,就应该选择这个协议。此外,我们还为纳什解的其他无效率特征提供了替代性的统一证明。这澄清了每个公理在相关结果中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Social Choice and Welfare explores all aspects, both normative and positive, of welfare economics, collective choice, and strategic interaction. Topics include but are not limited to: preference aggregation, welfare criteria, fairness, justice and equity, rights, inequality and poverty measurement, voting and elections, political games, coalition formation, public goods, mechanism design, networks, matching, optimal taxation, cost-benefit analysis, computational social choice, judgement aggregation, market design, behavioral welfare economics, subjective well-being studies and experimental investigations related to social choice and voting. As such, the journal is inter-disciplinary and cuts across the boundaries of economics, political science, philosophy, and mathematics. Articles on choice and order theory that include results that can be applied to the above topics are also included in the journal. While it emphasizes theory, the journal also publishes empirical work in the subject area reflecting cross-fertilizing between theoretical and empirical research. Readers will find original research articles, surveys, and book reviews.Officially cited as: Soc Choice Welf
期刊最新文献
Allocation without transfers: a welfare-maximizing mechanism under incomplete information Flexible representative democracy An axiomatic characterization of Split Cycle The character of non-manipulable collective choices between two alternatives Natural interviewing equilibria in matching settings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1