Journal Article Incentive Compatibility in Bargaining Under Uncertainty Get access Kalyan Chatterjee Kalyan Chatterjee Pennsylvania State University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 97, Issue 4, November 1982, Pages 717–726, https://doi.org/10.2307/1885109 Published: 01 November 1982

We investigate the effect of introducing costs of complexity in the n-person unanimity bargaining game. As is well-known, in this game every individually rational allocation is sustainable as a Nash equilibrium (also as a subgame perfect equilibrium if players are sufficiently patient and if n & 2). Moreover, delays in agreement are also possible in such equilibria. By limiting ourselves to a plausible notion of complexity that captures length of memory, we find that the introduction of complexity costs (lexicographically with the standard payoffs) does not reduce the range of possible allocations but does limit the amount of delay that can occur in any agreement. In particular, we show that in any n-player game, for any allocation z, an agreement on z at any period t can be sustained as a Nash equilibrium of the game with complexity costs if and only if t≤n. We use the limit on delay result to establish that, in equilibrium, the strategies implement stationary behavior. Finally, we also show that ‘noisy Nash equilibrium’ with complexity costs sustains only the unique stationary subgame perfect equilibrium allocation.

This paper examines an infinite horizon bargaining model, incorporating five features: two-sided incomplete information (with potentially information-revealing strategies), an infinite horizon, uncertainly concerning the potential gains from trade, an illumination of interesting qualitative bargaining issues, and plausible (free from arbitrarily specified out-of-equilibrium conjectures) equilibria. These features, motivated in the paper, have powerful implications. A Nash equilibrium exists, and is generically both unique and sequential. Comparative static implications of variations in the game's specifications are developed. We find that natural indications of bargaining strength emerge from the model, and establish the intuitive result that an increase in a player's relative bargaining strength makes that player more likely to capture the gains from bargaining.

We explore a sequential offers model of n-person coalitional bargaining with transferable utility and with time discounting. Our focus is on the efficiency properties of stationary equilibria of strictly superadditive games, when the discount factor δ is sufficiently large; we do, however, consider examples of other games where subgame perfectness alone is employed. It is shown that delay and the formation of inefficient subcoalitions can occur in equilibrium, the latter for some or all orders of proposer. However, efficient stationary equilibrium payoffs converge to a point in the core, as δ → 1. Strict convexity is a sufficient condition for there to exist an efficient stationary equilibrium payoff vector for sufficiently high δ. This vector converges as δ → 1 to the egalitarian allocation of Dutta and Ray (1989).