demands are x1 =1and y2 = ye2 , where ye2 , defined in (3) is such that player 1 is
indifferent between accepting the demand ye2 or rejecting it to demand x1 =1. Since
α1 ≤ b and λ2 ≤ λ2,y2 < 1. Second, when b ≤ α1 ≤ g, then the solution of the system
(13) is given by the demands in (6) and (7), since these are interior, they are SPE
demands. Third, when g ≤ α1 ≤ 1, the equilibrium demands are y2 =1and x1 = xe1 ,
where xe1, defined in (10) is such that player 2 is indifferent between accepting the
demand xe1 or rejecting it to demand y2 =1. Following standard arguments (see for
instance, Osborne and Rubinstein, 1990), it can be shown that these solutions define
a unique SPE. ■
The equilibrium specified above has interesting characteristics. First of all, play-
ers’ demands in equilibrium are complicated functions of the parameters of the model
and typical results obtained in the context of bargaining over a single cake (for in-
stance a more patient player obtains a larger utility), may not exist in this game. The
following corollary presents some comparative statics. These results are immediate
consequences of Proposition 1. A discussion of these results follows.
Corollary 1 The equilibrium outcome defined in Proposition 1, part 2, is char-
acterised by the following:
1) if α1 increases, x1 decreases, v1 increases (decreases) if δ1 >δ2 ( δ1 >δ2
respectively) and v2 increases;
2) if α2 (or λ2) increases, x1 increases, v1 increases and v2 increases (decreases)
10
More intriguing information
1. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON VIRGINIA DAIRY FARMS2. Land Police in Mozambique: Future Perspectives
3. Multi-Agent System Interaction in Integrated SCM
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. Urban Green Space Policies: Performance and Success Conditions in European Cities
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Washington Irving and the Knickerbocker Group
10. On the Desirability of Taxing Charitable Contributions