Malice and patience in Rubinstein bargaining
Research in Economics, 2019, vol. 73, issue 3, 264-270
If two players playing a Rubinstein alternating offers game are highly malicious (getting a high utility from “malice” in every period when the other player does not obtain a share in a fixed pie), and highly patient, no equilibrium with an agreement exists and players choose perpetual disagreement. This does not change if the players are subjected to a known deadline after which the pie will be appropriated by outside agencies or disappear: perpetual disagreement is still the only outcome. If in addition players are required to pay endogenously determined fines if they fail to reach agreement, players with discount factors in a certain range do reach agreement, but only at the deadline. However, infinitely patient players would never reach agreement for any feasible level of one-time fines. The result contrasts with spiteful or envious preferences. Our results highlight a novel reason for failure to resolve property disputes.
Keywords: Malice; Patience; Rubinstein bargaining; Deadlines (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C72 D91 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:reecon:v:73:y:2019:i:3:p:264-270
Access Statistics for this article
Research in Economics is currently edited by Federico Etro
More articles in Research in Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Haili He ().