Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model¶
Rubinstein, A. (1982). Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model. Econometrica, 50(1).
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Bargaining Power
- Every step of the pattern is comparative; nothing about either party's absolute resources enters it, only the ratio of what each stands to lose by walking away.
This sourceShows the unique subgame-perfect division of an alternating-offer bargain is fixed by the parties' relative impatience and disagreement payoffs rather than by absolute resources or by the sequence of concessions made along the way.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Rubinstein shows the outcome turns on the players' relative bargaining costs or discount factors, but not on a 'ratio' of losses from walking away, and the pie size and cost levels do enter.
“In other words, a weaker player gets almost 'nothing'; he can at most get the loss which his opponent incurs during one bargaining round.”
- Every step of the pattern is comparative; nothing about either party's absolute resources enters it, only the ratio of what each stands to lose by walking away.
Domain-specific¶
- Subgame Perfect Equilibrium
- and its canonical applications include Rubinstein's (1982) alternating-offers bargaining model (which yields a unique SPE division of a shrinking pie determined by the players' relative patience)
This sourceAlternating-offers bargaining with a unique perfect-equilibrium division, (1 - d2)/(1 - d1 d2), fixed by the players' discount factors.
SupportedVerified against the source
- and its canonical applications include Rubinstein's (1982) alternating-offers bargaining model (which yields a unique SPE division of a shrinking pie determined by the players' relative patience)
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 1 supported, 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:4ee3c594783b · see in the full table