Essays on Cooperative Bargaining

PhD Defense

16 October 2024

Introduction

Motivation

  • How to distribute value is a fundamental question in economics
    • Wage bargaining
    • Sharing the costs of a road trip
  • Many such situations are characterized by power imbalance
    • Employer vs. employees
    • Driver vs. passengers
  • The one indispensable / many smaller players is an economically important special case

History

  • Bargaining theory has a long history in economics
    • Zeuthen and Schumpeter (1930), Hicks (1932)
  • Cooperative (or axiomatic) bargaining theory in the 1950s
    • Seminal paper: Nash et al. (1950)
    • More general cooperative game theory: Shapley (1953a), Gillies (1959)
  • The Nash-program: non-cooperative microfoundations (Nash 1953)
    • Most well-known is Rubinstein (1982), Harsanyi (1956) is an early example
    • Microfoundations for the Shapley value: Gul (1989), Winter (1994), S. Hart and Mas-Colell (1996), Stole and Zwiebel (1996)

This thesis

  • Focus on
    • Predictions from cooperative game theory
    • One (few) central player(s) and many smaller ones
  • Three aspects
    • A general, abstract treatment of the problem
    • An application to hybrid platforms
    • A lab experiment to get a better understanding of bargaining behavior

Cooperative game theory

Coalitional form games

  • A game \(\mathcal{G} = (N, v)\) consists of
    • A set of players \(N\)
    • A characteristic function \(v: 2^N \to \mathbb{R}\)
  • Example 3-player game
    • Two producers (\(A_1, A_2\)): can each make $1 on their own
    • A platform: (\(P\)): triples the firms’ profits

Players: \[N = \{P, A_1, A_2\}\]

Characteristic function \(v(S)\):

Coalition (\(S\)) Profits
\(\{P\}\) 0
\(\{A_i\}\) 1
\(\{A_1, A_2\}\) 2
\(\{P, A_i\}\) 3
\(\{P, A_1, A_2\}\) 6

The Shapley-value

Each player gets their expected marginal contribution

Players: \[N = \{P, A_1, A_2\}\]

Characteristic function \(v(S)\):

Coalition (\(S\)) Profits
\(\{P\}\) 0
\(\{A_i\}\) 1
\(\{A_1, A_2\}\) 2
\(\{P, A_i\}\) 3
\(\{P, A_1, A_2\}\) 6

Core: Section 5.14

Nucleolus: Section 5.15

Why do we care about it?

Same idea as with the Nash bargaining solution

Chapter 1 – Theory

The value of being indispensable

Motivation

  • Using cooperative game theory to model bargaining
    • Has precedents in labor and IO literature
    • General solution concepts are flexible but often not very tractable
  • Focus on one indispensable player / many small players
    • Economically relevant
    • Even general solution concepts can be tractable in this case
  • Generalize existing results
    • Use random order values instead of the Shapley value or weighted values
    • Relax the indispensable player assumption
    • New results for heterogeneous small players

Simplest model

Set of all players: \(N = \{P, A_1, \dots, A_n\}\)

Assumptions

  • Big player (\(P\)) is indispensable
  • Small players (\(A_i\)) are symmetric

\[ v(S) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{if } P \notin S \\ f\left(\frac{\#_A (S)}{n}\right) & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} \]

Shapley value

Characteristic fct.: \[ \scriptsize v(S) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{if } P \notin S \\ f\left(\frac{\#_A (S)}{n}\right) & \text{o/w} \end{cases} \]

Shapley value: \[ \scriptsize \varphi_P^n(f) = \frac{1}{n+1} \sum_{k=0}^{n} f(k/n) \]

\[ \scriptsize \to \int_0^1 f(t) \, \mathrm{d}t \]

Random order values

Characteristic fct.: \[ \scriptsize v(S) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{if } P \notin S \\ f\left(\frac{\#_A (S)}{n}\right) & \text{o/w} \end{cases} \]

Random order value: \[ \scriptsize \varphi_P^n(f) = \sum_{k=0}^{n} {\color{RoyalBlue}\Pr(|\mathrm{prec}P| = k)} f(k/n) \]

\[ \scriptsize \to \int_0^1 f(t) \mathrm{d} {\color{RoyalBlue}G(t)} \]

Theorem 1.1.

  • Let \(f\) be continuous on \([0, 1]\).
  • Let \(X_n \coloneqq \frac{|\mathrm{prec}_P|}{n} \xrightarrow[]{d} X\)
    • with cdf \(G(t)\)
    • and, if exists, pdf \(g(t)\)

Then

\[ \begin{aligned} \varphi_P^\infty &\coloneqq \lim_{n \to \infty} \varphi_P^n = \int_0^1 f(t) \mathrm{d}G(t) \\ &= \int_0^1 g(t) f(t) \mathrm{d}t. \end{aligned} \]

Some comparative statics

The big player gets a larger slice when

  • The small players are substitutes to each other
  • The big player can creates some value on its own
  • The small players cannot create value on their own

Special case: multiple big players

  • Assume that
    • There are \(m\) big players
    • Only one of them is needed to create value
  • It turns out that
    • It’s equivalent to a random order value with one big player
    • Integrate wrt. the number of firms before first big player

Theorem 1.2.

  • Let \(X^j_n \coloneqq \frac{|\mathrm{prec}_{P_j}|}{n} \xrightarrow[]{d} X^j\)
    • with cdf \(G(t) \, \forall j\)
    • \(f\) continuous, \(X^j_n\) independent of each other

Then

\[ \varphi_P^{\infty, m} = \int_0^1 f(t) \mathrm{d}H(t) \] with \(H(t) = 1 - (1 - G(t))^m\).

Weighted value: Section 5.16

Illustration: Shapley value

  • Assume that
    • There are \(m\) big players
    • Only one of them is needed to create value
  • It turns out that
    • It’s equivalent to a random order value with one big player
    • Integrate wrt. the number of firms before first big player

SV for \(m \in \{1, 2, 3\}\) big players

2024-10-15T20:09:54.899342 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Weighted value: Section 5.16

Heterogeneous small players

  • Let us assume
    • One indispensable big player
    • \(L\) types of small players

\[ v(S) = \begin{cases} 0 \; \text{ if } P \notin S \\ f\left(\frac{\#_{A_1}(S)}{n}, \dots, \frac{\#_{A_L}(S)}{n}\right). \end{cases} \]

Theorem. 1.4. Assume that

  • \(f\) is continuous on \([0, 1]^L\)
  • \(X_n \coloneqq \left( \frac{n_{A_1}(\mathrm{prec})}{n}, \dots, \frac{n_{A_L}(\mathrm{prec})}{n} \right) \xrightarrow[]{d} X\) with cdf \(G(t_1, \dots, t_L)\)

\[ \implies \varphi_P^\infty = \int_0^1 \dots \int_0^1 f(t_1, \dots, t_L) \mathrm{d}G(t_1, \dots t_L) \]

Heterogeneity – Shapley value

  • Diagonal formula
    • Unequal proportions of small players is unlikely (LLN)
    • Only have to integrate over one dimension
  • As before, but
    • \(P\) gets area under the diagonal of \(f\)
    • For \(A_i^l\), marginal contributions ≈ partial derivatives

Proposition 1.7.

Let \(f\) be continuous on \([0, 1]^L\). Then, \[ \varphi_P^\infty = \int_0^1 f(t, \dots, t) \mathrm{d}t \] and \[ \varphi_{A^l}^\infty = \int_0^1 t \partial_l f(t, \dots, t) \mathrm{d}t. \]

General idea: Section 5.18

Heterogeneity – Shapley value

  • Diagonal formula
    • Unequal proportions of small players is unlikely (LLN)
    • Only have to integrate over one dimension
  • As before, but
    • \(P\) gets area under the diagonal of \(f\)
    • For \(A_i^l\), marginal contributions ≈ partial derivatives

Shapley value (diagonal formula)

2024-10-15T20:04:43.416742 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

General idea: Section 5.18

Heterogeneity – Weighted value

  • Let us add weights
    • \(P\) has weight \(\lambda_P\)
    • Type \(A^l\) has weight \(\lambda_l\)
  • Similar to the diagonal formula, but
    • The relevant manifold is curved
    • The curvature depends on the weights

Proposition 1.8.

Let \(f\) be continuous on \([0, 1]^L\). Then, \[ \varphi_P^\infty = \int_0^1 \lambda_P t^{\lambda_P - 1} f(t^{\lambda_1}, \dots, t^{\lambda_L}) \mathrm{d}t \] and \[ \varphi_{A^l}^\infty = \int_0^1 t^{\lambda_P} \lambda_l t^{\lambda_l - 1} \partial_l f(t^{\lambda_1}, \dots, t^{\lambda_L}) \mathrm{d}t. \]

Heterogeneity – Weighted value

  • Let us add weights
    • \(P\) has weight \(\lambda_P\)
    • Type \(A^l\) has weight \(\lambda_l\)
  • Similar to the diagonal formula, but
    • The relevant manifold is curved
    • The curvature depends on the weights

Weighted value with \(\lambda_1 < \lambda_2\)

2024-10-15T20:04:32.443122 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Summary

  • Provide a tool-kit for modeling bargaining in settings with one (few) central player(s) and many small ones
    • Use random order values as a general framework
    • Relax the indispensable player assumption
    • Generalize existing results for the heterogeneous small player case
    • Simple example application to two-sided markets (omitted here)
  • Random order values are a convenient tool for modeling bargaining in this setting
    • Analytically tractable
    • More flexible than the Shapley value or the weighed value
    • Sensible in terms of comparative statics

Chapter 2 – Application

Hybrid platforms and bargaining power

Motivation

  • Hybrid platforms are
    • Getting more and more common
    • Apparent concerns and high-profile competition policy cases
    • Despite this, relatively little research
  • Bargaining between participants is not well understood in the platform setting
    • Authors generally assume take-it-or-leave-it offers

Examine the bargaining power implications of hybrid platforms and their welfare consequences

Main ideas

  • Abstract away all frictions
    • Focus on the bargaining channel
    • Offers a good benchmark model
  • Consider a continuum of small players case for tractability
    • Good approximation of the finite player case, even for not too many players

Model – Players

  • One platform: \(P\)
    • Without the platform, no value can be created
    • Might have its own products (hybrid mode)
  • A continuum of potential fringe entrants: \(F_i, i \in \mathbb{R}_0^+\)
    • Infinitesimally small
    • Have one product each
    • Can only sell through the platform

Model – Timing and overview

Benchmark model

G entry_fee T1 : Platform unilaterally sets the entry fee entry_decision T2 : Potential entrants decide to invest in a product and enter entry_fee->entry_decision sales T3 : Platform and fringe set product prices entry_decision->sales final T4 : Consumers make consumption decisions sales->final

Bargaining model

G entry_decision T1 : Potential entrants decide to invest in a product entry_fee T2 : Entry fees are negotiated between platform and fringe entrants entry_decision->entry_fee sales T3 : Platform and fringe set product prices entry_fee->sales final T4 : Consumers make consumption decisions sales->final

Demand

Logit-like demand for each product \(T_i\)

  • \(T \in \{P, F\}\)
  • \(v\): value of the product
  • \(p\): price

\[ x_{Ti} = \frac{\exp\left( \frac{v_T - p_{T_i}}{\mu} \right)}{A} \]

where \[ A = \int_0^{N_F} \exp\left( \frac{v_F - p_{Fi}}{\mu} \right) \mathrm{d}i + \int_0^{N_P} \exp\left( \frac{v_P - p_{Pi}}{\mu} \right) \mathrm{d}i + 1 \]

Utility function: Section 5.19

Production

  • Assume that the platform prices its products as if they were made by separate, competitive sellers
    • Possible interpretation: profit-maximizing subsidiaries
    • More importantly: best-case scenario

Proposition 2.3.

The optimal price is an additive markup over marginal costs:

  • \(p^*_{Ti} = c_T + \mu\)
  • \(\pi^{v*}_{T_i} = \mu \frac{\exp \left( \frac{v_T - c_T - \mu}{\mu} \right)}{A} \coloneqq \frac{V_T}{A}\)

Free entry

  • Potential entrants decide to enter if they can cover the
    • Investment cost \(I_F\)
    • Platform entry fee \(K_F\)

Proposition 2.4.

If \(I_F\) and \(K_F\) are low enough, the equilibrium size of the aggregate is \[ A = \mu \frac{V_F}{K_F + I_F} \]

  • Does not directly depend on the platform’s product variety

Benchmark model

Theorem. 2.1. The optimal entry fee is given by

\[K_F^{opt} = \sqrt{\mu I_F V_F} - I_F\]

Theorem. 2.2. In the benchmark model, under the hybrid regime,

  • The equilibrium number of fringe firms is decreasing in the platform’s product variety: \(\frac{\mathrm{d} N_F}{\mathrm{d} N_P} = -\frac{V_P}{V_F} < 0\).
  • The equilibrium size of the aggregate and consumer surplus are independent of the platform’s product variety: \(\frac{\mathrm{d} A}{\mathrm{d} N_P} = \frac{\mathrm{d} CS}{\mathrm{d} N_P} = 0\).

Benchmark model

2024-10-15T20:04:40.932799 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Entry fee

2024-10-15T20:04:42.829566 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Number of fringe entrants

Bargaining model – profit division

  • Total profits (≈ characteristic function):

\[ \Pi(N_P, N_F) = \mu \frac{N_F V_F + N_P V_P}{N_F V_F + N_P V_P + 1} \]

  • Everyone gets their Shapley-value:

\[ \pi^t_P = \int_0^1 \Pi(N_P, sN_F) \mathrm{d}s, \quad \pi^t_{F_i} = \frac{\Pi(N_P, N_F) - \pi^t_P}{N_F} \]

  • Implied entry fee:

\[ K_F^{impl} = \pi^v_{F_i} - \pi^t_{F_i} \]

Bargaining model – fringe entry

  • The fringe profits are hump-shaped
  • Platform product variety reduces fringe entry
  • In the bargaining case, more than proportionally

Bargaining model – outcomes

Proposition 2.9. In the hybrid regime, the implied entry fee is increasing in the platform’s product variety:

\[ \frac{\partial K_F^{impl}(N_P)}{\partial N_P} > 0 \]

Theorem 2.3. In the bargaining model, under the hybrid regime

  • The equilibrium number of fringe firms is decreasing fast in the platform’s product variety: \(\frac{\mathrm{d} N_F}{\mathrm{d} N_P} < -\frac{V_P}{V_F}\).
  • The equilibrium size of the aggregate and consumer surplus are decreasing in the platform’s product variety: \(\frac{\mathrm{d} A}{\mathrm{d} N_P}, \frac{\mathrm{d} CS}{\mathrm{d} N_P} < 0\).

Bargaining model – outcomes

2024-10-15T20:07:56.157426 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

(Implied) Entry fee

2024-10-15T20:04:42.007222 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Number of fringe entrants

Other case: Section 5.20

Platform’s choice of product variety: Section 5.22

Extensions: Section 5.23

Bargaining model – outcomes

2024-10-15T20:04:39.868612 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Consumer surplus

2024-10-15T20:04:44.175938 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Platform profits

Other case: Section 5.20

Platform’s choice of product variety: Section 5.22

Extensions: Section 5.23

Conclusion

  • Tractable model of hybrid platforms in which bargaining plays a key role
    • Applicable to other settings, too (e.g., vertical markets, franchises)
  • Highlight an important aspect of hybrid platforms
    • Hybrid mode increases bargaining power against entrants
    • This can have negative welfare consequences
  • Policy implications for such markets
    • Apple, Google, etc., having their own apps
    • Microsoft acquiring Activision/Blizzard

Chapter 3 – Experiment

Characterizing multiplayer free-form bargaining

joint work with Mia Lu

Motivation

  • Much work on bargaining in experimental economics (understatement)
  • Much less work on free-form bargaining
    • especially between more than two players
  • The one indispensable player / multiple small players setting has real-world relevance
    • Wage bargaining
    • An inventor with an idea and multiple investors
    • A band where one member owns the PA system

Research question

  • Problem: non-cooperative game theory cannot provide predictions without structure
    • E.g., timing of the game, who makes the offers
    • NCGT solution is alternating offer games, but a lot depends on minor details (S. Hart and Mas-Colell 1996)
  • How does bargaining power affect bargaining outcomes?
  • How well do cooperative game theory solution concepts describe the outcomes?

What we do

  • Free-form bargaining between three players
    • Almost no structure
    • Group-level unrestricted chat
    • An interface for proposing and accepting allocations
    • No binding decisions until the very last second
  • Vary the bargaining power of the indispensable player
    • How important it is to have all small players on board
  • We test whether:
    • Outcomes vary based on bargaining power as one would expect
    • Certain CGT solution concepts provide good predictions

The game

  • Players: \(N = \{A, B_1, B_2\}\)
  • Value function: \(v: 2^N \to \mathbb{R}\)
    • No one can create any value alone: \(v(\{A\}) = v(\{B_i\}) = 0\)
    • Player \(A\) is indispensable: \(v(\{B_1, B_2\}) = 0\)
    • Small players contribute to the value: \(v(\{A, B_i\}) = Y \in [0, 100]\)
    • The more small players the better: \(v(\{A, B_1, B_2\}) = 100\)

How to divide the value between the players?

Solution concepts

2024-10-15T20:03:33.532219 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Experimental setup

  • 4 treatments/sessions and 144 subjects
  • Timing:
    • Instructions with comprehension checks
    • Slider task
    • Trial round + 5 bargaining rounds (5 minutes each)
    • Survey (demographics, reasoning, axioms)
  • Free-form bargaining via public chat and interface for submitting proposals and current acceptances
    • Unlimited number of messages and proposals
    • Acceptances are not binding and can be changed any time

Main results: average payoffs

2024-10-15T20:06:12.391504 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

  • Dummy player gets something
  • \(Y=10\) and \(Y=30\) treatments look similar
  • Player A gets more in \(Y=30\) treatment
  • Nucleolus better in terms of ‘shape’ but worse in terms of ‘distance’
  • Linear regression and Mann-Whitney test yield the same conclusion

A deeper look

2024-10-15T20:05:44.453920 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

  • In all treatments, equal(ish) split is a frequent outcome
    • Even in the dummy player treatment!
  • \(Y=10\) and \(Y=30\) treatments still look similar
  • In the \(Y=90\) treatment
    • \(A\) only achieves significantly higher payoff by excluding one small player
    • Neither efficient nor stable

Timing of agreements: Section 5.24

Testing the axioms

  • Axioms characterizing the Shapley value and the core
    • Look at observed behavior
    • Survey at the end of the experiment
  • Observed choices provide
    • Strong evidence against dummy player and stability axiom
    • Evidence against symmetry and efficiency axioms in \(Y=90\) groups
    • Evidence for symmetry and efficiency axioms in other treatments
    • Some evidence against linearity
  • Stated preferences and actions disagree
    • Concerns about subjects understanding the questions

Details: Section 5.25

Chat topics (before final agreement)

2024-10-15T20:05:56.095031 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

  • Lots of small talk
    • Early agreement → boredom
    • Negotiation tactic for small players
  • Relatively few fairness-related arguments
    • Although more in treatments with high bargaining power disparity
  • Discussion about the experiment itself
    • Players can clarify the rules for others
    • Provides feedback for the experimenters

All chat messages: Section 5.35

Example chat messages: Section 5.31

Main takeaways

  • Lots of equal splits in all treatments, but considerable heterogeneity between participants
    • Heterogeneity in fairness concepts?
    • Norms established in early rounds?
  • Nucleolus gives qualitatively correct predictions
    • No bargaining power advantage when there is no profitable deviation
  • Both overestimate the big player’s share
    • They do not capture all relevant fairness considerations
    • Combining other-regarding preferences and CGT might be promising
  • People’s stated preferences and actions disagree

Thank you

References

Anderson, Simon P, and Özlem Bedre-Defolie. 2021. “Hybrid Platform Model.”
Armstrong, Mark. 2006. “Competition in Two-Sided Markets.” The RAND Journal of Economics 37 (3): 668–91.
Chessa, Michela, Nobuyuki Hanaki, Aymeric Lardon, and Takashi Yamada. 2023. “An Experiment on Demand Commitment Bargaining.” Dynamic Games and Applications 13 (2): 589–609.
De Clippel, Geoffroy, and Kareen Rozen. 2022. “Fairness Through the Lens of Cooperative Game Theory: An Experimental Approach.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 14 (3): 810–36.
De Fontenay, Catherine C, and Joshua S Gans. 2005. “Vertical Integration in the Presence of Upstream Competition.” RAND Journal of Economics, 544–72.
Fogelman, Francoise, and Martine Quinzii. 1980. “Asymptotic Value of Mixed Games.” Mathematics of Operations Research 5 (1): 86–93.
Galeotti, Fabio, Maria Montero, and Anders Poulsen. 2018. Efficiency Versus Equality in Bargaining.” Journal of the European Economic Association 17 (6): 1941–70.
Gillies, Donald B. 1959. “Solutions to General Non-Zero-Sum Games.” Contributions to the Theory of Games 4 (40): 47–85.
Gul, Faruk. 1989. “Bargaining Foundations of Shapley Value.” Econometrica, 81–95.
Gutierrez, German. 2021. “The Welfare Consequences of Regulating Amazon.” Job Market Paper, New York University.
Hagiu, Andrei. 2004. “Optimal Pricing and Commitment in Two-Sided Markets.” Rand Journal of Economics 20: 658–70.
Hagiu, Andrei, Tat-How Teh, and Julian Wright. 2022. “Should Platforms Be Allowed to Sell on Their Own Marketplaces?” The RAND Journal of Economics 53 (2): 297–327.
Harsanyi, John C. 1956. “Approaches to the Bargaining Problem Before and After the Theory of Games: A Critical Discussion of Zeuthen’s, Hicks’, and Nash’s Theories.” Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, 144–57.
Hart, Oliver, and John Moore. 1990. “Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm.” Journal of Political Economy 98 (6): 1119–58.
Hart, Oliver, Jean Tirole, Dennis W Carlton, and Oliver E Williamson. 1990. “Vertical Integration and Market Foreclosure.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics 1990: 205–86.
Hart, Sergiu. 1973. “Values of Mixed Games.” International Journal of Game Theory 2 (1): 69–85.
Hart, Sergiu, and Andreu Mas-Colell. 1996. “Bargaining and Value.” Econometrica, 357–80.
Hicks, J. 1932. The Theory of Wages. Macmillan. https://books.google.ch/books?id=P-1AAAAAIAAJ.
Hossain, T., E. Lyons, and A. Siow. 2020. Fairness considerations in joint venture formation.” Experimental Economics 23 (August): 632–67.
Inderst, Roman, and Christian Wey. 2003. “Bargaining, Mergers, and Technology Choice in Bilaterally Oligopolistic Industries.” RAND Journal of Economics, 1–19.
Kalisch, G., John Willard Milnor, John F. Nash, and E. D. Nering. 1952. Some Experimental n-Person Games. RAND Corporation.
Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike. 1992. “Payoff Divisions on Coalition Formation in a Three-Person Characteristic Function Experiment.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 17 (1): 183–93. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(92)90086-Q.
Levy, Anat, and Lloyd S Shapley. 1997. “Individual and Collective Wage Bargaining.” International Economic Review, 969–91.
Luhan, W. J., O. Poulsen, and M. W. M. Roos. 2019. “Money or Morality: Fairness Ideals in Unstructured Bargaining.” Social Choice and Welfare 53: 655–75. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-019-01206-5.
Maschler, Michael. 1965. “Playing an n-Person Game, an Experiment.”
Michener, H., and Kathryn Potter. 1981. “Generalizability of Tests in n-Person Sidepayment Games.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 733–49.
Milnor, John Willard, and Lloyd S Shapley. 1978. “Values of Large Games II: Oceanic Games.” Mathematics of Operations Research 3 (4): 290–307.
Mitsutsune, Masanori, and Takanori Adachi. 2014. “Estimating Noncooperative and Cooperative Models of Bargaining: An Empirical Comparison.” Empirical Economics 47: 669–93.
Montero, Maria, Martin Sefton, and Ping Zhang. 2008. “Enlargement and the Balance of Power: An Experimental Study.” Social Choice and Welfare 30 (1): 69–87.
Montez, João V. 2007. “Downstream Mergers and Producer’s Capacity Choice: Why Bake a Larger Pie When Getting a Smaller Slice?” The RAND Journal of Economics 38 (4): 948–66.
Murnighan, J., and A. Roth. 1977. “The Effects of Communication and Information Availability in an Experimental Study of a Three-Person Game.” Management Science 23 (12): 1336–48.
———. 1978. “Large Group Bargaining in a Characteristic Function Game.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 22: 299--317.
Nash, John F et al. 1950. “The Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 18 (2): 155–62.
Nash, John F. 1953. “Two-Person Cooperative Games.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 128–40.
Navarro, Noemí, and Róbert F. Veszteg. 2020. “On the Empirical Validity of Axioms in Unstructured Bargaining.” Games and Economic Behavior 121: 117–45.
Rapoport, Amnon, and James P Kahan. 1976. “When Three Is Not Always Two Against One: Coalitions in Experimental Three-Person Cooperative Games.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 12 (3): 253–73. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(76)90056-1.
Rochet, Jean-Charles, and Jean Tirole. 2003. “Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets.” Journal of the European Economic Association 1 (4): 990–1029.
Rubinstein, Ariel. 1982. “Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model.” Econometrica, 97–109.
Schwaninger, Manuel. 2022. “Sharing with the Powerless Third: Other-Regarding Preferences in Dynamic Bargaining.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 197: 341–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.03.002.
Shapley, Lloyd S. 1953a. “A Value for n-Person Games.” Contributions to the Theory of Games, 307–17.
———. 1953b. Additive and Non-Additive Set Functions. Princeton University.
Shinoda, T., and Y. Funaki. 2022. “The Core and the Equal Division Core in a Three-Person Unstructured Bargaining Experiment: The Weakest Coalition Is Ignored.” https://ssrn.com/abstract=4291591.
Steiner, Robert L. 2004. “The Nature and Benefits of National Brand/Private Label Competition.” Review of Industrial Organization 24 (2): 105–27.
Stole, Lars A, and Jeffrey Zwiebel. 1996. “Intra-Firm Bargaining Under Non-Binding Contracts.” The Review of Economic Studies 63 (3): 375–410.
Tremewan, James, and Christoph Vanberg. 2016. “The Dynamics of Coalition Formation–a Multilateral Bargaining Experiment with Free Timing of Moves.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 130: 33–46.
Winter, Eyal. 1994. “The Demand Commitment Bargaining and Snowballing Cooperation.” Economic Theory 4 (2): 255–73.
Zeuthen, F. L. B., and J. A. Schumpeter. 1930. Problems of Monopoly and Economic Warfare. Kelley. https://books.google.ch/books?id=w8kN0AEACAAJ.

Appendix – CGT

The core

There are no profitable deviations

\[ \begin{aligned} \pi_P &\geq 0 \\ \pi_{A_i} &\geq 1 \\ \pi_{A_1} + \pi_{A_2} &\geq 2 \\ \pi_{P} + \pi_{A_i} &\geq 3 \end{aligned} \]

It may be multi-valued, e.g.:

\(\pi_P\) \(\pi_{A_1}\) \(\pi_{A_2}\)
2 2 2
0 3 3
3 2 1

Players: \[N = \{P, A_1, A_2\}\]

Characteristic function \(v(S)\):

Coalition (\(S\)) Profits
\(\{P\}\) 0
\(\{A_i\}\) 1
\(\{A_1, A_2\}\) 2
\(\{P, A_i\}\) 3
\(\{P, A_1, A_2\}\) 6

The nucleolus

Maximize the smallest excess

Excess: payoff – value \[ \begin{aligned} e({P}) &= \pi_P \mathrel{\phantom{=2}} \\ e({A_i}) &= \pi_{A_i} - 1 \mathrel{\phantom{=1}} \\ e({P, A_i}) &= \pi_P + \pi_{A_i} - 3 \mathrel{\phantom{=1}} \\ e({A_1, A_2}) &= \pi_{A_1} + \pi_{A_2} - 2 \mathrel{\phantom{=2}} \end{aligned} \]

Excess: payoff – value \[ \begin{aligned} e({P}) &= \pi_P \mathrel{\color{RoyalBlue}{=2}} \\ e({A_i}) &= \pi_{A_i} - 1 \mathrel{\color{RoyalBlue}{=1}} \\ e({P, A_i}) &= \pi_P + \pi_{A_i} - 3 \mathrel{\color{RoyalBlue}{=1}} \\ e({A_1, A_2}) &= \pi_{A_1} + \pi_{A_2} - 2 \mathrel{\color{RoyalBlue}{=2}} \end{aligned} \]

Unique and contained in the core: \[ \pi_P = \pi_{A_1} = \pi_{A_2} \mathrel{\color{RoyalBlue}= 2} \]

Players: \[N = \{P, A_1, A_2\}\]

Characteristic function \(v(S)\):

Coalition (\(S\)) Profits
\(\{P\}\) 0
\(\{A_i\}\) 1
\(\{A_1, A_2\}\) 2
\(\{P, A_i\}\) 3
\(\{P, A_1, A_2\}\) 6

Appendix – Chapter 1

Special case: weighted value

  • Assume that
    • Player \(P\) has weight \(\lambda \geq 0\)
    • Small players have weight \(1\)
  • In this case
    • The weighted value corresponds to a specific random order value
    • Probability distribution depends on the weights

Theorem 1.2.

Let \(f\) be continuous on \([0, 1]\). Then

\[ \begin{aligned} \varphi_P^{\infty, \lambda} &= \int_0^1 f(t) \mathrm{d}G(t) \\ &= \int_0^1 \lambda t^{\lambda-1} f(t) \mathrm{d}t. \end{aligned} \] with \(G(t) = t^\lambda\).

Special case: weighted value

  • Assume that
    • Player \(P\) has weight \(\lambda \geq 0\)
    • Small players have weight \(1\)
  • In this case
    • The weighted value corresponds to a specific random order value
    • Probability distribution depends on the weights

Weighted value for \(\lambda \in \{0.5, 1, 3\}\)

2024-10-15T20:03:53.275443 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Heterogeneity – general case

Lemma 1.2.. Assume that

  • \(X_n \xrightarrow[]{d} X\) where \(X\) with cdf. \(H\).
  • The whole probability mass of \(X\) is concentrated on the manifold \((a_1(s), \dots a_L(s)), t \in [0, 1]\).

Then \[ \begin{aligned} \varphi_P^\infty &= \int_0^1 f(a_1(s), \dots a_L(s)) \mathrm{d}H(s), \\ \varphi_{A^l}^\infty &= \int_0^1 H(s) a_l'(s) \partial_l f(a_1(s), \dots a_L(s)) \mathrm{d}s. \end{aligned} \]

Appendix – Chapter 2

Utility function

  • Follow Anderson and Bedre-Defolie (2021)
  • Unit mass of customers, each choosing one product maximizing \[u_{ij}^T = v^T - p_i^T + \mu \varepsilon_{ij}^T\]
    • \(T \in \{P, F, 0\}\)
    • Unit mass of outside options at price \(p_i^0 = 0\)
    • \(v_T\): value of the product
    • \(\mu\): degree of horizontal differentiation
    • \(\varepsilon_{ij}^T \sim \mathrm{Gumbel}(0, 1)\): taste shocks

Bargaining model – other case

2024-10-15T20:04:36.652982 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

(Implied) Entry fee

2024-10-15T20:04:37.781940 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Number of fringe entrants

Bargaining model – other case

2024-10-15T20:05:33.729402 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Consumer surplus

2024-10-15T20:04:35.108992 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Platform profits

Platform’s choice of product variety

  • Higher platform product variety → lower consumer surplus when platform is operating in hybrid mode
  • Does it want to have more products?
  • Assume that at time 0, the platform can invest in its own products at cost \(I_P\) per product

Propositions 2.11, 2.12.

  • In the benchmark model, \(N_P^* > 0 \implies \frac{V_P}{I_P} \geq \frac{V_F}{I_F}\).
  • In the bargaining model, it can happen that \(N_P^* > 0\) even if \(\frac{V_P}{I_P} < \frac{V_F}{I_F}\).

Extensions

  • Difference in innate bargaining power
    • Players get their weighted value
    • More flexible but no qualitative difference
  • Consumers (customers) take part in the bargaining
    • C.f. heterogeneous small players (Section 3.10)
    • Platform and customers get the same share
    • What’s good for the platform is good for the customers
    • Otherwise similar results

Appendix – Chapter 3

Time of accepting final allocation

2024-10-15T20:05:12.345465 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/
  • Most agreement times are well before the end of the bargaining time
  • In the \(Y=90\) treatment, partial agreements come later
  • Otherwise, agreement times are broadly similar across the main treatments

Efficiency

2024-10-15T20:05:51.585280 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

2024-10-15T20:06:20.378736 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Symmetry

2024-10-15T20:05:11.122089 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

2024-10-15T20:08:26.951205 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Dummy player axiom

2024-10-15T20:06:47.006103 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

2024-10-15T20:06:28.646937 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Stability

2024-10-15T20:06:00.113664 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

2024-10-15T20:06:26.860759 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Linearity

2024-10-15T20:08:06.384062 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Linearity

2024-10-15T20:08:11.417761 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

2024-10-15T20:08:15.683539 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Chat – Stability-based reasoning

2024-10-15T20:06:01.273112 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Y = 90

2024-10-15T20:05:35.457088 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Y = 30

2024-10-15T20:05:18.719807 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Y = 10

Chat – Fairness-based reasoning

2024-10-15T20:05:34.927141 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Rejecting small offers

2024-10-15T20:06:13.047108 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Equal split

2024-10-15T20:05:18.182959 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

A gets a bit more

Chat – Dummy player treatment

2024-10-15T20:08:14.071018 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Altruism

2024-10-15T20:08:16.371434 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Abuse of position

2024-10-15T20:06:47.621464 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Appeal to pity

Chat – Feedback about experiment

2024-10-15T20:06:29.340938 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Having a chat

2024-10-15T20:06:00.739623 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Bargaining time

2024-10-15T20:06:25.242375 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

Payouts

Chat topics (all)

2024-10-15T20:08:08.317752 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.8.4, https://matplotlib.org/

  • Roughly similar picture
  • More small talk
    • Agreement was often early
    • Subjects had plenty of time to kill
  • Some bargaining still happening
    • Agreements are not binding