The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem
Abstract
A two-person bargaining problem is considered. It is shown that under four axioms that describe the behavior of players there is a unique solution to such a problem. The axioms and the solution presented are different from those suggested by Nash. Also, families of solutions which satisfy a more limited set of axioms and which are continuous are discussed. WE CONSIDER a two-person bargaining problem mathematically formulated as follows. To every two-person game we associate a pair (a, S), where a is a point in the plane and S is a subset of the plane. The pair (a, S) has the following intuitive interpretation: a = (a1, a2) where ai is the level of utility that player i receives if the two players do not cooperate with each other. Every point x = (x1, x2) e S represents levels of utility for players 1 and 2 that can be reached by an outcome of the game which is feasible for the two players when they do cooperate. We are interested in finding an outcome in S which will be agreeable to both players. This problem was considered by Nash [3] and his classical result was that under certain axioms there is a unique solution. However, one of his axioms of independence of irrelevant alternatives came under criticism (see [2, p. 128]). In this paper we suggest an alternative axiom which leads to another unique solution. Also, it was called to our attention by the referee that experiments conducted by H. W. Crott [1] led to the solution implied by our axioms rather than to Nash's solution. We also consider the class of continuous solutions which are required to satisfy only the axioms of Nash which are usually accepted. We give examples of families of such solutions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Wage bargaining and employment
Mcdonald, I. M., & Solow, R. M. (1992) · Economic Models of Trade Unions · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-2378-5_5 · Cited by 1,316
Dominant resource fairness: fair allocation of multiple resource types
Ghodsi, A., Zaharia, M., Hindman, B., Konwinski, A., Shenker, S. J., & Stoica, I. G. (2011) · doi:10.5555/1972457.1972490 · Cited by 1,049
Evolution of the Social Contract
Skyrms, B. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139924825 · Cited by 743
Game-theoretic models and the role of information in bargaining.
Roth, A. E., & Malouf, M. W. (1979) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.86.6.574 · Cited by 549
Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI
Hammond, L., Chan, A., Clifton, J., Hoelscher-Obermaier, J., Khan, A., McLean, E., Smith, C., Barfuss, W., Foerster, J., Gavenčiak, T., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14143 · Cited by 305
Metadata
- Authors
- Kalai, E., & Smorodinsky, M.
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1975-05
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 513
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2001910686
- Cited by
- 1,799
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1914280
- The paper
- Kalai, E., & Smorodinsky, M. (1975). Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem. Econometrica. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914280
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.