|Abstract||We argue that Nash’s solution to the bargaining problem should be modified such that it will be based on a New Reference Point (NRP). Such a point is needed so that a player is not considered ‘individually rational’ if he accepts an agreement that provides him with a utility lower than the minimal utility he can derive from any Pareto optimal agreement, or if he accepts an agreement that provides him a utility lower than the one he can obtain by unilateral action. The employment of such NRP requires modifying two axioms and hence leads to a new proposed solution.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Joachim Rosenmüller (1997). Bargaining with Incomplete Information an Axiomatic Approach. Theory and Decision 42 (2):105-146.
Edward McClennen (2012). Rational Cooperation. Synthese 187 (1):65-93.
Vincent J. Vannetelbosch (1999). Alternating-Offer Bargaining and Common Knowledge of Rationality. Theory and Decision 47 (2):111-138.
Vincenzo Denicolò & Marco Mariotti (2000). Nash Bargaining Theory, Nonconvex Problems and Social Welfare Orderings. Theory and Decision 48 (4):351-358.
Paul Weirich (1991). Contractiarianism and Bargaining Theory. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:369-385.
Michael Byron (1995). Rationality Is Not Fair. Analysis 55 (4):252 - 260.
Michael Moehler (2010). The (Stabilized) Nash Bargaining Solution as a Principle of Distributive Justice. Utilitas 22 (4):447-473.
Jonathan Shalev (2002). Loss Aversion and Bargaining. Theory and Decision 52 (3):201-232.
Andreas Pfingsten & Andreas Wagener (2003). Bargaining Solutions as Social Compromises. Theory and Decision 55 (4):359-389.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-07-25
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?