Balanced outcomes in social exchange networks

The study of bargaining has a long history, but many basic settings are still rich with unresolved questions. In particular, consider a set of agents who engage in bargaining with one another,but instead of pairs of agents interacting in isolation,agents have the opportunity to choose whom they want to negotiate with, along the edges of a graph representing social-network relations. The area of network exchange theory in sociology has developed a large body of experimental evidence for the way in which people behave in such network-constrained bargaining situations, and it is a challenging problem to develop models that are both mathematically tractable and in general agreement with the results of these experiments. We analyze a natural theoretical model arising in network exchange theory, which can be viewed as a direct extension of the well-known Nash bargaining solution to the case of multiple agents interacting on a graph. While this generalized Nash bargaining solution is surprisingly effective at picking up even subtle differences in bargaining power that have been observed experimentally on small examples, it has remained an open question to characterize the values taken by this solution on general graphs, or to find an efficient means to compute it. Here we resolve these questions, characterizing the possible values of this bargaining solution, and giving an efficient algorithm to compute the set of possible values. Our result exploits connections to the structure of matchings in graphs, including decomposition theorems for graphs with perfect matchings, and also involves the development of new techniques. In particular, the values we are seeking turn out to correspond to a novel combinatorially defined point in the interior of a fractional relaxation of the matching problem.

[1]  J. Nash THE BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1950, Classics in Game Theory.

[2]  R. Emerson Power-Dependence Relations , 1962, Power in Modern Societies.

[3]  K. Cook,et al.  Power, Equity and Commitment in Exchange Networks , 1978 .

[4]  Bengt Aspvall,et al.  A polynomial time algorithm for solving systems of linear inequalities with two variables per inequality , 1979, 20th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1979).

[5]  K. Cook,et al.  The Distribution of Power in Exchange Networks: Theory and Experimental Results , 1983, American Journal of Sociology.

[6]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  Two-Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretic Modeling and Analysis , 1990 .

[7]  Karen S. Cook,et al.  Power in exchange networks: a power-dependence formulation , 1992 .

[8]  David Willer,et al.  Exclusion and Power: a Test of Four Theories of Power in Exchange Networks , 1993 .

[9]  David Willer Network Exchange Theory , 1999 .

[10]  R. Kranton,et al.  A Theory of Buyer-Seller Networks , 2001 .

[11]  A. Perea,et al.  Bargaining in networks and the myerson value , 2001 .

[12]  J. Lucas,et al.  Lines of Power in Exchange Networks , 2001 .

[13]  Antoni Calvó-Armengol,et al.  Bargaining power in communication networks , 2001, Math. Soc. Sci..

[14]  Margarida Corominas-Bosch,et al.  Bargaining in a network of buyers and sellers , 2004, J. Econ. Theory.

[15]  Luis E. Ortiz,et al.  Economic Properties of Social Networks , 2004, NIPS.

[16]  Gary Charness,et al.  Bargaining and Network Structure: An Experiment , 2005, J. Econ. Theory.

[17]  V. Vazirani Algorithmic Game Theory: Combinatorial Algorithms for Market Equilibria , 2007 .