Escalation game with endogenous demands and the Nash bargaining solution
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The paper examines the behavior of two agents who need to make a joint decision but they have conflicting preferences about the choice of the outcome. Conventionally such problem is considered as the bargaining problem described as the situation of dividing a pie. But we introduce the model that sheds a different light on the problem in question. The problem is described as the conflict situation modelled as a two-stage game. In the first stage players propose outcomes. The settlement is made if the proposed outcomes are the same. If not, the game moves onto the second stage where they play the concession game called the escalation game. In the escalation game, each player, in turn, has the choice between either to submit by accepting the other's demand or to escalate by way of insisting his demand to be accepted. Each escalation generates a probability of disagrement outcome. There are two main findings: (1) it is shown that the player's decision is determined by his risk limit which measures his intensity towards winning. (2) it is shown that there is a path of disagreement probabilities in which proposing the Nash cooperative solution is the optimal strategy for both players.
Abstract
The paper examines the behavior of two agents who need to make a joint decision but they have conflicting preferences about the choice of the outcome. Conventionally such problem is considered as the bargaining problem described as the situation of dividing a pie. But we introduce the model that sheds a different light on the problem in question. The problem is described as the conflict situation modelled as a two-stage game. In the first stage players propose outcomes. The settlement is made if the proposed outcomes are the same. If not, the game moves onto the second stage where they play the concession game called the escalation game. In the escalation game, each player, in turn, has the choice between either to submit by accepting the other's demand or to escalate by way of insisting his demand to be accepted. Each escalation generates a probability of disagrement outcome. There are two main findings: (1) it is shown that the player's decision is determined by his risk limit which measures his intensity towards winning. (2) it is shown that there is a path of disagreement probabilities in which proposing the Nash cooperative solution is the optimal strategy for both players.
참고문헌 (12)
- "Rand Journal of Economics A Theory of Disagreement in Bargaining", eco(metrica), pp.176 607~188 633
- "On the Rationality Postulates Underlying the Theory of Cop-erative Games Journal of Conict Resolution5", pp.179~196 (1961)
- "Bargaining and Conict Situations in the Light of a New Ap-proach to Game Theory", pp.447~457 (1965)
- "Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games andSocial Situations" (1977), Cambridge University Press
- "Game Theory Models of Peace and War in Handbook of GameTheory", pp.96~1053 (1994), Elsevier Science Publisher
- "A Sequential Concession Game with Asym-metric Information The Quarterly Journal of Economics", pp.879~888 (1986)
- "Crisis Bargaining, Escalation, and MAD", 81, pp.717~735 (1997)
- "Nuclear Brinkmanship with Two-Sided Incomplete Information", 82, pp.155~178 (1998)
- "“ Axiomatic Models of Bargaining” Lecture Notes in Economics andMathematical Systems No 170" (1979), Springer-Verlag
- "“Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model”", eco(metrica), pp.97~109 (1982)
- "“The Strategy of Conflict”" (1980), Harvard UniversityPress
- "“Theory of Games and Economic Behavior”" (1944), Princeton Princeton University Press
