×

zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations. (English) Zbl 1068.91015
Summary: We develop a constructive approach to multi-party negotiations over continuous issues. The method is intended to be used as a mediator’s tool for step-by-step creation of joint gains in order to reach a Pareto-optimal agreement. During the mediation process, the parties are only required to answer relatively simple questions concerning their preferences; they do not have to reveal their utility functions completely. The method generates jointly improving directions to move along, and it is a non-trivial generalization of the recently proposed two-party methods. We give a mathematical analysis together with a numerical example, but also a practical basis for negotiation support in real-world settings.

MSC:
91B10 Group preferences
90C29 Multi-objective and goal programming
91B32 Resource and cost allocation (including fair division, apportionment, etc.)
91B76 Environmental economics (natural resource models, harvesting, pollution, etc.)
Software:
Web-HIPRE
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI
References:
[1] Bazaraa, M.S., Sherali H.D., Shetty, C.M., 1993. Nonlinear Programming: Theory and Algorithms. Wiley, New York · Zbl 0774.90075
[2] Brams, S.J., 1990. Negotiation Games: Applying Game Theory to Bargaining and Arbitration Procedures. Routledge, New York
[3] Brams, S.J., Taylor, A.D., 1996. Fair Division. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · Zbl 0991.91019
[4] Brams, S.J., Togman, J.M., 1997. Camp David: Was the agreement fair? In: Harvey, F.P., Mor, B.D. (Eds.), New Directions in the Study of Conflict, Crisis and War, Macmillan Press, London
[5] Denoon, D.B.H., Brams, S.J., 1997. Fair division: A new approach to the Spratly Islands controversy. International Negotiation 2 (2)
[6] Ehtamo, H., Hämäläinen, R.P., Heiskanen, P., Teich, J., Verkama, M., Zionts, S., 1999a. Generating Pareto solutions in a two-party setting: Constraint proposal methods. Management Science 45 (12), to appear · Zbl 1231.91113
[7] Ehtamo, H., Verkama, M., Hämäläinen, R.P., 1992. On contracting under incomplete information using linear proposals. In: Preprints of the Fifth International Symposium on Dynamic Games and Applications. Grimentz, Switzerland, pp. 128-133
[8] Ehtamo, H.; Verkama, M.; Hämäläinen, R.P., On distributed computation of Pareto solutions for two decision makers, IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics – part A: systems and humans, 26, 498-503, (1996)
[9] Ehtamo, H.; Verkama, M.; Hämäläinen, R.P., How to select fair improving directions in a negotiation model over continuous issues, IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics – part C: applications and reviews, 29, 26-33, (1999)
[10] Fang, L., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., 1993. Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Wiley, New York
[11] Fiacco, A.V., 1983. Introduction to Sensitivity and Stability Analysis in Nonlinear Programming. Academic Press, New York · Zbl 0543.90075
[12] Fisher, R., 1978. International Negotiation: A Working Guide. International Peace Academy, New York
[13] Fisher, R., Ury, W., 1987. Getting to Yes. Arrow, London
[14] Haake, C-J., Raith, M.G., Su, F.E., 1999. Bidding for Envy-freeness: A procedural approach to N-player fair-division problems. Working Paper, Institute of Mathematical Economics, University of Bielefeld, Germany · Zbl 1072.91590
[15] Hämäläinen, R.P., Kettunen, E., Marttunen, M., Ehtamo, H., 1999. Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Manuscript, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland. (Downloadable at http://www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/mhamb.pdf.) An earlier version: Towards decision and negotiation support in multi-stakeholder development of lake regulation policy. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1999 (http://dlib.computer.org/conferen/hicss/(0001)/pdf/(00011065).pdf)
[16] Hämäläinen, R.P., Mustajoki, J., 1998. Web-HIPRE - Java-applet for value tree and AHP analysis. Computer software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland (http://www.hipre.hut.fi)
[17] Kalai, E.; Smorodinsky, M., Other solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem, Econometrica, 43, 513-518, (1975) · Zbl 0308.90053
[18] Kersten, G.E.; Noronha, S.J., Rational agents, contract curves, and inefficient compromises, IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics – part A: systems and humans, 28, 326-338, (1998)
[19] Kettunen, E., Hämäläinen, R.P., 1999. Joint Gains - Negotiation support in the internet. Computer software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland (http://www.jointgains.hut.fi)
[20] Levhari, D.; Mirman, L.J., The great fish war: an example using a dynamic cournot – nash solution, Bell journal of economics, 11, 322-334, (1980)
[21] Lewicki, R., Litterer, J., 1985. Negotiation. Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL
[22] Mumpower, J.L., The judgment policies of negotiators and the structure of negotiation problems, Management science, 37, 1304-1324, (1991) · Zbl 0729.90866
[23] Nash, J.F., The bargaining problem, Econometrica, 18, 155-162, (1950) · Zbl 1202.91122
[24] Pruitt, D., 1981. Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press, New York
[25] Raiffa, H., 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Belknap/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
[26] Raith, M.G., Welzel, A., 1998. Adjusted winner: An algorithm for implementing bargaining solutions in multi-issue negotiations. Working Paper, Institute of Mathematical Economics, University of Bielefeld, Germany
[27] Rao, G.A.; Shakun, M.F., A normative model for negotiations, Management science, 20, 1364-1375, (1974)
[28] Teich, J.E.; Wallenius, H.; Kuula, M.; Zionts, S., A decision support approach for negotiation with an application to agricultural income policy negotiations, European journal of operational research, 81, 76-87, (1995) · Zbl 0913.90212
[29] Teich, J.E.; Wallenius, H.; Wallenius, J.; Zionts, S., Identifying Pareto-optimal settlements for two-party resource allocation negotiations, European journal of operational research, 93, 536-549, (1996) · Zbl 0916.90169
[30] Tversky, A.; Sattah, S.; Slovic, P., Contingent weighting in judgment and choice, Psychological review, 95, 371-384, (1988)
[31] Verkama, M.; Ehtamo, H.; Hämäläinen, R.P., Distributed computation of Pareto solutions in n-player games, Mathematical programming, 74, 29-45, (1996) · Zbl 0868.90142
[32] Yu, P.-L., 1985. Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Plenum Press, New York
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.