×

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
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[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)
[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)
[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)
[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
[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
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. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.