This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Basic model
• Let A and B be the agents who are bargaining
• V is the total value that will be produced if they can agree to a particular solution
• If A were to give up on B and pursue other options, then he can assure himself a value a Bargaining as a Game
Topic 1 Lecture 2 Week 3 – e.g. the worker obtaining a job at another firm • If B were to pursue other options, he can assure himself a value b
– e.g., the firm replacing the worker with a new hire
ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 1 ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 y
v • For a meaningful problem: we must have
V – a – b > 0
• e.g., the worker does not produce as much in another firm (because he has acquired skills specific to this firm—learnt the “corporate culture”), and a new worker is not as productive in this firm. is the surplus that • Then S = V – a – b
is available to bargain over
• Let x denote what A gets, and let y denote what B gets in a potential solution. Representation If S is constant independent of how
it is distributed between A and B, the
situation can be represented like this
Any point in the triagle to the NE
of P is a potential solution.
P
b
x+y=v a
ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 2 3 v
ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 x
4 The standard problem Why will they agree? • So we can think of A and B bargaining over a pie of size S=1
• If they can agree to split the pie with shares a and b, then A gets a and B gets b
• Of course, a+b=1
• If they cannot agree then the pie disappears
• Both A and B like pie, the more the better • Note that if there is no agreement, then S is just destroyed, neither A nor B gets any part of it by default.
• So why will A not hold out for almost all of S, after all B cannot have any without A’s participation? Same for B.
• There must be some reason which makes holding out costly, so players are willing to give up some of the pie to reach an agreement. ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 5 ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 6 Alternating offers
• This can happen in one of three ways, all of which depend essentially on how time enters the problem:
– agreement must be reached within a certain time, else everybody gives up and goes home
– pie gets smaller the longer parties hold out
– parties discount the future ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 7 • To use the tools we already have, we must define bargaining as a game, i.e. with specific rules and payoffs.
• In “alternating offers bargaining”, parties alternately make offers to one another on how to split the pie. e.g.:
–
–
–
– A offers to give Y to B and keep (S—Y)
If B accepts then game is over
If B rejects then B offers to give X to A, and keep (S—X)
If A accepts then game is over, else A offers... • The game may also start with B rather than A making the first offer.
ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 8 Fixed number of rounds Fixed number of rounds
• Two rounds • Ultimatum Game: – A offers
– if reject then B offers
– end
– Analysis – A makes offer
– B accepts or rejects
– if accept, they get shares of S according to A’s offer
– if reject then neither gets anything
– game is over
– (this is the game James and Sachi played last week)
ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 • Three rounds
– A offers
– if reject then B offers
– if reject then A offers
– end
– Analysis
9 ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 10 Pie shrinks Discounting • Each period the pie shrinks to a fraction of its previous size. There will always be pie, but it can get very very small
• If there is no agreement in period 1, then a fraction (1‐q) of the pie disappears
• In period 2 there is only q < 1 units of pie left
• In period 3 there will only be q2 units of pie left
• This is very much like the discounting case (coming up). • Players discount the future
• After A offers B can reject, but then he will have to wait at least until next period to get some pie. If he gets Y next period, it is just as good (or bad) as getting Y right now (where is his discount factor).
• Note that A suffers as well if B rejects, because he too discounts later payoffs relative to immediate ones. A also has the same discount factor . ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 11 12 Finite alternating offers with discounting Two rounds • Key: If B rejects A’s initial offer, then in the next round we start a new game which is just like the original game, in which B offers first.
• One round‐‐‐ultimatum game.
• Two rounds
• Three rounds
• Note there is an advantage to being the first person to move • A makes offer in the first round, B makes offer in the second round.
• If the game goes to the second round, then it becomes an ultimatum game, and B will take (almost) the whole pie.
• But if he gets fraction of the pie in period 1, he will be just as happy
• So A can offer to give to B in round 1, and B will accept ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 13 14 Infinite number of rounds Three rounds
• If the game gets to round 3, then A will keep the whole pie (ultimatum game)
• So in round 2, B can offer to A, and keep (1‐ )
• But (1‐ ) in round 2 is no better than (1‐ ) in round 1.
• So A can offer this to him, and keep 1 ‐ (1‐ )
• (is this better for A than in round 2?)
ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 15 • First, observe that no one ever getting any pie cannot be a solution
• Because then A can offer B a small amount in round 1, and both players will prefer this to a solution that never gives anything to either player
• So suppose the solution gives a to A and b to B in some future round t (e.g., t=20)
• But then in period 1 A can offer B an amount 19b, and B is just as happy to take this as wait for the solution
• And A is happier.
• SO IN THE EQUILIBRIUM, AN AGREEMENT MUST BE REACHED IN ROUND 1 ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 16 Finding the equilibrium
• We will use a neat trick • We know that – There is an equilibrium
– The equilibrium offer is made and accepted in the first period • Let this equilibrium be an offer of (1‐X) from A to B. B gets (1‐X), A keeps X. ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 17 • Suppose B declines the first‐round offer, so game goes to second round.
• Now the game looks to B exactly as the original game looked to A
• So the following must be an equilibrium:
• B offers (1‐X) to A and keeps X
• i.e., if (a=X, b=1‐X) is an equilibrium for the original game, then (a=1‐X, b=X) must be an equilibrium once the game gets to the second round.
ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 18 The role of patience
• is a measure of patience • So B can assure himself X in round 2 by declining A’s offer in round 1.
• So in round 1 A must offer him at least X.
• But A offers 1‐X, which B accepts.
• So it must be true that 1‐X > X • A does not need to offer any more – near zero implies high impatience
– near unity implies patience • In the equilibrium we have X = 1/(1+ )
• If agents are very impatient then first mover keeps most of the pie
– Second mover will take a small cut rather than wait • If agents are very patient then shares are nearly equal. – So 1‐X = X • Which gives X = 1/(1+ )
ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 19 ECON 1401 S1 2011 Lecture 3 20 ...
View
Full
Document
This note was uploaded on 06/12/2011 for the course ECONOMICS 3291 taught by Professor Professorsnamespublishedtheyarethesoleowners during the Three '11 term at University of New South Wales.
 Three '11
 professorsnamespublishedtheyarethesoleowners
 Economics, Game Theory

Click to edit the document details