Suchergebnisse

THE ONGOING CRISIS IN AFGHANISTAN IS THE RESULT OF MISADVENTURES AND MISJUDGMENTS, COMPOUNDED BY INTERNAL MISHANDLING AND INTERNATIONAL MISPERCEPTIONS, ACCORDING TO THIS ARTICLE. THE LESSONS OF THE AFGHAN CRISIS REINFORCE THOSE FROM OTHER CASES OF ARMED INTERVENTION WHERE NATIONALISM AND LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES WERE IGNORED OR MISUNDERSTOOD.

Committees are often made up of representatives, each of them acting on behalf of a group of individuals or constituency of different size, who make decisions by means of a voting rule which specifies what vote configurations in the committee can pass a decision. This raises the question of the choice of an `adequate' (in a sense to be specified) voting rule, given the different sizes of the groups that members represent. In this article we take a new departure to address this problem, assuming that the committee is a bargaining scenario in which negotiations take place `in the shadow of the voting rule' in search of consensus. That is, a general agreement is sought, but any winning coalition can enforce an agreement. In this context, the notion of a `neutral' voting rule, based on the compromise between equitableness and efficiency (or egalitarianism and utilitarianism) represented by the Nash bargaining solution, is founded, yielding a recommendation that differs from previous ones.

Bosch Healthcare Solutions stellt seine Verbrauchsprodukte CO2-neutral – und geht damit schon einen Schritt über das Ziel der Robert Bosch GmbH hinaus, in der kompletten Produktion, Verwaltung und Forschung klimaneutral zu werden.

We propose a solution for bargaining problems where coalitions are bargainers. The solution generalizes the Nash solution and allows one to interpret a coalition as an institutional player whose preferences are obtained by aggregating the preferences of the individual members. One implication of our solution is that forming a coalition is unprofitable in pure-bargaining situations (the joint-bargaining paradox). We show, however, that forming a coalition can be profitable in a non-pure bargaining situation. ; In der vorliegenden Arbeit schlagen wir ein Lösungskonzept für Verhandlungsspiele vor, bei denen die verhandelnden Parteien aus Koalitionen von Individuen bestehen können. Unser Lösungskonzept basiert auf einer Verallgemeinerung der Nash- Verhandlungslösung. Nach unserem Lösungskonzept kann eine Koalition als ein institutioneller Spieler aufgefasst werden, dessen Präferenzordnung auf einer Aggregierung der Präferenzen seiner Mitglieder basiert. Eine Implikation unserer Verhandlungslösung ist, dass Koalitionen in .reinen Verhandlungsspielen. nicht im Interesse der Individuen sind. In .nicht reinen Verhandlungsspielen. hingegen können Koalitionen durchaus vorteilhaft seien.

Abstract
This paper introduces a family of domains of bargaining problems allowing for non-convexity. For each domain in this family, single-valued bargaining solutions satisfying the Nash axioms are explicitly characterized as solutions of the iterated maximization of Nash products weighted by the row vectors of the associated bargaining weight matrices. This paper also introduces a simple procedure to standardize bargaining weight matrices for each solution into an equivalent triangular bargaining weight matrix, which is simplified and easy to use for applications. Furthermore, the standardized bargaining weight matrix can be recovered from bargaining solutions of simple problems. This recovering result provides an empirical framework for determining the bargaining weights.