On arguments from self-interest for the Nash solution and the Kalai egalitarian solution to the bargaining problem

Theory and Decision 23 (3):231-260 (1987)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
I argue in this paper that there are two considerations which govern the dynamics of a two-person bargaining game, viz. relative proportionate utility loss from conceding to one's opponent's proposal and relative non-proportionate utility loss from not conceding to one's opponent's proposal, if she were not to concede as well. The first consideration can adequately be captured by the information contained in vNM utilities. The second requires measures of utility which allow for an interpersonal comparison of utility differences. These considerations respectively provide for a justification of the Nash solution and the Kalai egalitarian solution. However, none of these solutions taken by themselves can provide for a full story of bargaining, since, if within a context of bargaining one such consideration is overriding, the solution which does not match this consideration will yield unreasonable results. I systematically present arguments to the effect that each justification from self-interest for respectively the Nash and the Kalai egalitarian solution is vulnerable to this kind of objection. I suggest that the search for an integrative model may be a promising line of research.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BOVOAF
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-07-18
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Rawlsian Nash Solutions.Fabella, Raul V.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2013-01-04

Total downloads
57 ( #26,954 of 37,120 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #22,751 of 37,120 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.