How robust is the equal split? Transferable utility and three-person bargaining in the laboratory

Abstract This paper investigates the robustness of equal-split outcomes in unstructured bargaining environments, expanding on classic two-person settings to include payoff transfers and multi-party bargaining. Drawing from experimental data, we find that equal splits persist as a focal solution in two-person bargaining with payoff transfers, even when some potential efficiency gains are left unexploited, likely due to limitations in participants’ cognitive and strategic sophistication. In three-person settings (without payoff transfers), while agreements align closely with equality, they tend to do so only as long as efficiency and stability criteria are met. Our results suggest that bargaining parties prioritize equality when efficient solutions are complicated to find, but prioritize efficiency when efficient solutions are easily accessible. Also, in multilateral bargaining, coalitional stability becomes a primary concern, whereas it remains a softer constraint in simpler, bilateral negotiations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Economic Inequality
Published
2025-08-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-025-09694-5
Primary Topic
Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How robust is the equal split? Transferable utility and three-person bargaining in the laboratory

Noemí Navarro, Róbert F. Veszteg
The Journal of Economic Inequality
Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
article

How robust is the equal split? Transferable utility and three-person bargaining in the laboratory

Noemí Navarro, Róbert F. Veszteg
article en

Abstract

Abstract This paper investigates the robustness of equal-split outcomes in unstructured bargaining environments, expanding on classic two-person settings to include payoff transfers and multi-party bargaining. Drawing from experimental data, we find that equal splits persist as a focal solution in two-person bargaining with payoff transfers, even when some potential efficiency gains are left unexploited, likely due to limitations in participants’ cognitive and strategic sophistication. In three-person settings (without payoff transfers), while agreements align closely with equality, they tend to do so only as long as efficiency and stability criteria are met. Our results suggest that bargaining parties prioritize equality when efficient solutions are complicated to find, but prioritize efficiency when efficient solutions are easily accessible. Also, in multilateral bargaining, coalitional stability becomes a primary concern, whereas it remains a softer constraint in simpler, bilateral negotiations.

The Journal of Economic Inequality
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Waseda University (JP), Centre de Recherche en Économie et Management (FR), Université de Rennes (FR)
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Waseda University, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Institut des sciences humaines et sociales
Openalex Percentile: Top 77%
Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

How robust is the equal split? Transferable utility and three-person bargaining in the laboratory — Noemí Navarro, Róbert F. Veszteg · The Journal of Economic Inequality (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS