Emin Karagözoğlu

Performance Information, Production Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining

We experimentally explore the effect of performance information and production uncertainties on i subjective entitlements derived from the production process and ii bargaining over the jointly produced surplus. We hypothesize that performance information and details of the production process affect entitlements, which in turn influence bargaining behavior. We find that, without performance information, subjective entitlements are mostly mutually consistent, and bargaining mainly ends with an equal split. In stark contrast, negotiators derive strong, mutually inconsistent, subjective entitlements when there is performance information. These subjective entitlements affect opening proposals, concessions, and bargaining duration and lead to asymmetric agreements. Moreover, given performance information, endogenous variations in entitlements influence bargaining, suggesting an independent role of subjective entitlements. Production uncertainties influence bargaining, especially when performance information is present, but do not substantially mitigate the effect of entitlements. Theoretical bargaining models allowing for reference points or fairness principles can partly account for the empirical results. Yet, important aspects are left unexplained and our results suggest ways for extending these models. Data, as supplemental material, are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2012 . This paper was accepted by Uri Gneezy, behavioral economics.

A non-cooperative support for equal division in estate division problems☆

We consider estate division problems, a generalization of bankruptcy problems. We show that in a direct revelation claim game, if the underlying division rule satisfies efficiency, equal treatment of equals, and weak order preservation, then all (pure strategy) Nash equilibria induce equal division. Next, we consider division rules satisfying efficiency, equal treatment of equals, and claims monotonicity. For claim games with at most three agents, again all Nash equilibria induce equal division. Surprisingly, this result does not extend to claim games with more than three agents. However, if nonbossiness is added, then equal division is restored.

On the influence of hard leverage in a soft leverage bargaining game: The importance of credible claims

What makes a bargaining proposal credible? We study how hard leverage (binding commitment) influences soft leverage (appealing to a focal point) in a rich-context bargaining game known to exhibit competing claims to focality. In three treatments, our experiment varies one bargainers ability to commit, holding the soft leverage condition fixed. As in previous studies, we observe that opening offers are consistent with the available soft leverage. The influence of hard leverage is most evident in the concessionary stage. Hard and soft leverage interact to influence outcomes: Hard leverage advantages its holder, yet settlements largely stay between the two focal points. We posit that focal points induce mutual expectations of bargainer social preferences that, when combined with the Nash bargaining solution, imply the comparative statics concerning the settlements observed. A similarly modified version of the Zeuthen–Harsanyi model of the bargaining process, agrees with the comparative statics on opening offers and concessions.

A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogenous estate

We introduce a new class of bankruptcy problems in which the value of the estate is endogenous and depends on agents’ investment decisions. There are two investment alternatives: investing in a company (risky asset) and depositing money into a savings account (risk-free asset). Bankruptcy is possible only for the risky asset. We define a game between agents each of which aims to maximize his expected payoff by choosing an investment alternative and a company management which aims to maximize profits by choosing a bankruptcy rule. Our agents are differentiated by their incomes. We consider three most prominent bankruptcy rules in our base model: the proportional rule, the constrained equal awards rule and the constrained equal losses rule. We show that only the proportional rule is a part of any pure strategy subgame perfect Nash equilibrium. This result is robust to changes in income distribution in the economy and can be extended to a larger set of bankruptcy rules and multiple types. However, extension to multiple company framework with competition leads to equilibria where the noncooperative support for the proportional rule disappears.

Duality, area-considerations, and the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution

We introduce a new solution concept for 2 -person bargaining problems, which can be considered as the dual of the Equal-Area solution (EA) (see Anbarciźand Bigelow (1994)). Hence, we call it the Dual Equal-Area solution (DEA). We show that the point selected by the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution (see Kalai and Smorodinsky (1975)) lies in between those that are selected by EA and DEA. We formulate an axiom-area-based fairness-and offer three characterizations of the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution in which this axiom plays a central role.

A minimally altruistic refinement of Nash equilibrium

We introduce a minimal notion of altruism and use it to refine Nash equilibria in normal form games. We provide three independent existence proofs, relate minimally altruistic Nash equilibrium to other equilibrium concepts, conduct an in-depth sensitivity analysis, and provide examples where minimally altruistic Nash equilibrium leads to improved predictions.

Endogenous reference points in bargaining

We allow the reference point in (cooperative) bargaining problems with a reference point to be endogenously determined. Two loss averse agents simultaneously and strategically choose their reference points, taking into consideration that with a certain probability they will not be able to reach an agreement and will receive their disagreement point outcomes, whereas with the remaining probability an arbitrator will distribute the resource by using (an extended) Gupta–Livne bargaining solution (Gupta and Livne in Manag Sci 34:1303–1314, 1988). The model delivers intuitive equilibrium comparative statics on the breakdown probability, the loss aversion coefficients, and the disagreement point outcomes.

A Tale of Two Bargaining Solutions

We set up a rich bilateral bargaining model with four salient points (disagreement point, ideal point, reference point, and tempered aspirations point), where the disagreement point and the utility possibilities frontier are endogenously determined. This model allows us to compare two bargaining solutions that use reference points, the Gupta-Livne solution and the tempered aspirations solution, in terms of Pareto efficiency in a strategic framework. Our main result shows that the weights solutions place on the disagreement point do not directly imply a unique efficiency ranking in this bargaining problem with a reference point. In particular, the introduction of a reference point brings one more degree of freedom to the model which requires also the difference in the weights placed on the reference point to be considered in reaching an efficiency ranking.