IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v173y2018icp108-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The roll call interpretation of the Shapley value

Author

Listed:
  • Kurz, Sascha
  • Napel, Stefan

Abstract

The Shapley value is commonly illustrated by roll call votes in which players support or reject a proposal in sequence. If all sequences are equiprobable, a voter’s Shapley value can be interpreted as the probability of being pivotal, i.e., to bring about the required majority or to make this impossible for others. We characterize the joint probability distributions over cooperation patterns that permit this roll call interpretation: individual votes may be interdependent but must be exchangeable.

Suggested Citation

  • Kurz, Sascha & Napel, Stefan, 2018. "The roll call interpretation of the Shapley value," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 108-112.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:173:y:2018:i:c:p:108-112
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2018.09.025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176518304099
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.09.025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giulia Bernardi & Josep Freixas, 2018. "The Shapley value analyzed under the Felsenthal and Machover bargaining model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 557-565, September.
    2. Felsenthal, Dan S & Machover, Moshe, 1996. "Alternative Forms of the Shapley Value and the Shapley-Shubik Index," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 87(3-4), pages 315-318, June.
    3. Xingwei Hu, 2006. "An Asymmetric Shapley–Shubik Power Index," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 34(2), pages 229-240, August.
    4. Shapley, L. S. & Shubik, Martin, 1954. "A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 787-792, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sascha Kurz & Issofa Moyouwou & Hilaire Touyem, 2021. "Axiomatizations for the Shapley–Shubik power index for games with several levels of approval in the input and output," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(3), pages 569-594, April.
    2. André Casajus & Frank Huettner, 2019. "The Coleman–Shapley index: being decisive within the coalition of the interested," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 275-289, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sascha Kurz, 2018. "Importance In Systems With Interval Decisions," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-23, September.
    2. André Casajus & Frank Huettner, 2019. "The Coleman–Shapley index: being decisive within the coalition of the interested," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 275-289, December.
    3. Masanori Mitsutsune & Takanori Adachi, 2014. "Estimating noncooperative and cooperative models of bargaining: an empirical comparison," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 669-693, September.
    4. Fabien Lange & László Kóczy, 2013. "Power indices expressed in terms of minimal winning coalitions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(2), pages 281-292, July.
    5. Sascha Kurz & Issofa Moyouwou & Hilaire Touyem, 2021. "Axiomatizations for the Shapley–Shubik power index for games with several levels of approval in the input and output," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(3), pages 569-594, April.
    6. Giulia Bernardi, 2018. "A New Axiomatization of the Banzhaf Index for Games with Abstention," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 165-177, February.
    7. Christophe Labreuche & Michel Grabisch, 2006. "Axiomatisation of the Shapley value and power index for bi-cooperative games," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00113340, HAL.
    8. René Brink & Frank Steffen, 2012. "Axiomatizations of a positional power score and measure for hierarchies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 757-787, June.
    9. Friedman, Jane & Parker, Cameron, 2018. "The conditional Shapley–Shubik measure for ternary voting games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 379-390.
    10. Giulia Bernardi & Josep Freixas, 2018. "The Shapley value analyzed under the Felsenthal and Machover bargaining model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 557-565, September.
    11. Dan S. Felsenthal, 2016. "A Well-Behaved Index of a Priori P-Power for Simple N-Person Games," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 367-381, December.
    12. Feng, Zongbao & Wu, Xianguo & Chen, Hongyu & Qin, Yawei & Zhang, Limao & Skibniewski, Miroslaw J., 2022. "An energy performance contracting parameter optimization method based on the response surface method: A case study of a metro in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    13. Deniz Aksoy, 2010. "Who gets what, when, and how revisited: Voting and proposal powers in the allocation of the EU budget," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 171-194, June.
    14. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2008. "Noncooperative foundations of bargaining power in committees and the Shapley-Shubik index," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 341-353, May.
    15. Leech, Dennis, 2002. "Voting Power In The Governance Of The International Monetary Fund," Economic Research Papers 269354, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    16. Block, Joern H. & Hirschmann, Mirko & Kranz, Tobias & Neuenkirch, Matthias, 2023. "Public family firms and economic inequality across societies," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    17. Dimitrov, Dinko & Haake, Claus-Jochen, 2011. "Coalition formation in simple Games. the semistrict core," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 378, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    18. Monisankar Bishnu & Sonali Roy, 2012. "Hierarchy of players in swap robust voting games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(1), pages 11-22, January.
    19. Borkowski, Agnieszka, 2003. "Machtverteilung Im Ministerrat Nach Dem Vertrag Von Nizza Und Den Konventsvorschlagen In Einer Erweiterten Europaischen Union," IAMO Discussion Papers 14887, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    20. Zaporozhets, Vera & García-Valiñas, María & Kurz, Sascha, 2016. "Key drivers of EU budget allocation: Does power matter?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 57-70.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Shapley value; Shapley–Shubik index; Roll call model; Voting power;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:173:y:2018:i:c:p:108-112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.