Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-6tpvb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T16:16:06.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Matching markets with price bargaining

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Philipp E. Otto  and
Friedel Bolle
Philipp E. Otto*
Affiliation:
Lehrstuhl Volkswirtschaftslehre, Insbesondere Wirtschaftstheorie (Mikroökonomie), Europa-Universität Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), Postfach 1786, 15207 Frankfurt (Oder), Germany
Friedel Bolle
Affiliation:
Lehrstuhl Volkswirtschaftslehre, Insbesondere Wirtschaftstheorie (Mikroökonomie), Europa-Universität Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), Postfach 1786, 15207 Frankfurt (Oder), Germany
*
e-mail: otto@europa-uni.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The extant microeconomic literature on matching markets assumes ordinal preferences for matches, while bargaining within matches is mostly excluded. Central for this paper, however, is bargaining over joint profits from potential matches. We investigate, both theoretically and experimentally, a seemingly simple allocation task in a 2 × 2 market with repeated negotiations. When inefficiency is possible, about 1/3 of the complete matches are inefficient and, overall, more than 3/4 of the experimental allocations are unstable. These results strongly contradict existing bargaining theories requiring efficient matches. Even with regard to efficient matches, the tested theories perform poorly. Standard bargaining and behavioral concepts, such as Selten's (1972) Equal Division Core, are outperformed by the simplistic ɛ-Equal Split, i.e., an equal split of the joint profit plus/minus ɛ.

Keywords

Matching marketPrice negotiationOptimal allocationBargaining models

JEL classification

D40: General C78: Bargaining Theory • Matching Theory J41: Labor Contracts C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D82: Asymmetric and Private Information • Mechanism Design
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 322 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s10683-010-9270-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Abdulkadiroglu, A., & Sönmez, T. (1999). House allocation with existing tenants. Journal of Economic Theory, 88(2), 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, W. (1988). Revealed aspirations and reciprocal loyalty in apex games. In Tietz, R., Albers, W., & Selten, R. (Eds.), Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems: Vol. 314. Bounded rational behavior in experimental games and markets (pp. 303–316). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Becker, G.S. (1974). A theory of marriage. In Schulz, T. W. (Ed.), Economics of the family (pp. 299–344). The University of Chicago and London.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, A. (2004). On the equal division core. Social Choice & Welfare, 22(2), 391–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. (1999). The sound of silence in prisoner's dilemma and dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 38(1), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolle, F. (1985). Natural and optimal unemployment. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft (JITE), 141, 256–268.Google Scholar
Bolle, F., Breitmoser, Y., & Otto, P. E. (2009). Individual versus role dependent social preferences: evidence from bargaining experiments. Manuscript, EUV.Google Scholar
Brown, A. J. G., Merkl, C., & Snower, D. J. (2009). An incentive theory of matching. Working Paper (4145, IZA).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T. N., & Noussair, C. (2007). A market with frictions in the matching process: an experimental study. International Economic Review, 48(2), 665–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlin, E. H. (1948). An experimental imperfect market. Journal of Political Economy, 56(2), 95108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: accounting for face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 26–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehlers, L. (2007). Von Neumann-Morgenstern stable sets in matching problems. Journal of Economic Theory, 134(1), 537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-tree: zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, D., & Shapley, L. S. (1962). College admission and the stability of marriage. American Mathematical Monthly, 69, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1958). Threshold in choice and the theory of demand. Econometrica, 26, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillies, D. B. (1959). Solutions to general non-zero-sum games. In Tucker, A. W. & Luce, R. D. (Eds.), Annals of mathematics studies: Vol. 40. Contributions to the theory of games IV (pp. 47–85). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, R. E., & Milgrom, P. R. (2008). The limited influence of unemployment on the wage bargain. American Economic Review, 98(4), 1653–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haruvy, E., & Ünver, M. U. (2007). Equilibrium selection and the role of information in repeated matching markets. Economics Letters, 94(2), 284–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haruvy, E., Roth, A., & Ünver, M. U. (2006). The dynamics of law clerk matching: an experimental and computational investigation of proposals for reform of the market. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 30(3), 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huck, S., Normann, H.-T., & Oechssler, J. (2004). Two are few and four are many: number effects in experimental oligopolies. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53(4), 435–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J. H., & Roth, A. E. (2000). The dynamics of reorganization in matching markets: a laboratory experiment motivated by a natural experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(1), 201–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamecke, U. (1992). On the uniqueness of the solution to a large linear assignment problem. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 21(6), 509–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, T. J., & Beckmann, M. (1957). Assignment problems and the location of economic activity. Econometrica, 25(1), 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (2008). Marriage market equilibrium and bargaining in marriage. Working Paper (December 2008, University of Washington).Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. T., & Pissarides, C. A. (1994). Job creation and job destruction in the theory of unemployment. Review of Economic Studies, 61(3), 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, R. B. (1991). Game theory—analysis of conflict. Cambridge/Massachusetts/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nosaka, H. (2007). Specialization and competition in marriage models. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(1), 104–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radner, R., & Schotter, A. (1989). The sealed-bit mechanism: an experimental study. Journal of Economic Theory, 48, 179–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E. (1984). Misrepresentation and stability in the marriage problem. Journal of Economic Theory, 34(2), 383–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E. (1985). The college admissions problem is not equivalent to the marriage problem. Journal of Economic Theory, 36(2), 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E. (1990). New physicians: a natural experiment in market organization. Science, 250, 15241528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roth, A. E., Sönmez, T., & Ünver, M. U. (2004). Kidney exchange. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(2), 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, A. (1982). Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 50(1), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, H., & Toda, M. (1992). Two-sided matching problems with externalities. Journal of Economic Theory, 70(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sell, J., & Wilson, R. (1991). Levels of information and contributions to public goods. Social Forces, 70(1), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R. (1972). Equal share analysis of characteristic function experiments. In Sauermann, H. (Ed.), Contributions to experimental economics: Voi. 111. Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung (pp. 130–165). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Selten, R. (1991). Properties of a measure of predictive success. Mathematical Social Sciences, 21, 153167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R., & Uhlich, G. R. (1988). Order of strength and exhaustivity as additional hypotheses in theories for three-person characteristic function games. In Tietz, R., Albers, W., & Selten, R. (Eds.), Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems: Voi. 314. Bounded rational behavior in experimental games and markets (pp. 235–250). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Shapley, L. S., & Shubik, M. (1966). Quasi-cores in a monetary economy with non-convex preferences. Econometrica, 34, 805–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapley, L. S., & Shubik, M. (1971). The assignment game, I: The core. International Journal of Game Theory, 1(1), 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenbrunsel, A. E., Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Moag, J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). The negotiation matching process: relationships and partner selection. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 80(3), 252–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valley, K. L., Moag, J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1998). ‘A matter of trust’: effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34, 211238.Google Scholar
Valley, K. L., Thompson, L., Gibbons, R., & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). How communication improves efficiency in bargaining. Games & Economic Behavior, 38, 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Web Appendices (PDF 174 KB)
Download undefined(File)
File 178.9 KB