IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v20y1997i2p161-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balanced Contributions Axiom in the Solution of Cooperative Games

Author

Listed:
  • Sanchez S., Francisco

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanchez S., Francisco, 1997. "Balanced Contributions Axiom in the Solution of Cooperative Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 161-168, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:20:y:1997:i:2:p:161-168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899-8256(97)90565-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Lehrer, E, 1988. "An Axiomatization of the Banzhaf Value," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 17(2), pages 89-99.
    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. María Gómez-Rúa & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2011. "Balanced per capita contributions and level structure of cooperation," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 19(1), pages 167-176, July.
    2. Kamijo, Yoshio & Kongo, Takumi, 2012. "Whose deletion does not affect your payoff? The difference between the Shapley value, the egalitarian value, the solidarity value, and the Banzhaf value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(3), pages 638-646.

    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. Sylvain Béal & Amandine Ghintran & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2015. "The sequential equal surplus division for rooted forest games and an application to sharing a river with bifurcations," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(2), pages 251-283, September.
    2. Tejada, O. & Álvarez-Mozos, M., 2018. "Graphs and (levels of) cooperation in games: Two ways how to allocate the surplus," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 114-122.
    3. Mustapha Ridaoui & Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2018. "An axiomatisation of the Banzhaf value and interaction index for multichoice games," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02381119, HAL.
    4. Dubey, Pradeep & Einy, Ezra & Haimanko, Ori, 2005. "Compound voting and the Banzhaf index," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 20-30, April.
    5. M. Álvarez-Mozos & O. Tejada, 2015. "The Banzhaf value in the presence of externalities," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(4), pages 781-805, April.
    6. Dragan, Irinel, 1996. "New mathematical properties of the Banzhaf value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 451-463, December.
    7. Sven Berg, 1999. "On Voting Power Indices and a Class of Probability Distributions: With applications to EU data," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 17-31, January.
    8. René van den Brink & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Frank Steffen, 2013. "Measuring Power and Satisfaction in Societies with Opinion Leaders," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-00756720, HAL.
    9. Ori Haimanko, 2019. "Composition independence in compound games: a characterization of the Banzhaf power index and the Banzhaf value," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(3), pages 755-768, September.
    10. Maurice Koster & Sascha Kurz & Ines Lindner & Stefan Napel, 2017. "The prediction value," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 433-460, February.
    11. van den Brink, J.R., 1999. "An Axiomatization of the Shapley Value Using a Fairness Property," Other publications TiSEM 0090365c-9bab-4367-b660-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. René van den Brink & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Frank Steffen, 2009. "Measuring Power and Satisfaction in Societies with Opinion Leaders: Dictator and Opinion Leader Properties," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 09-052/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2017. "A strategic implementation of the sequential equal surplus division rule for digraph cooperative games," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 43-59, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Amer, Rafael & Gimenez, Jose Miguel, 2007. "The two-person blocks as a way to emphasize several semivalues," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 172-184, March.
    16. René Brink & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Frank Steffen, 2013. "Measuring power and satisfaction in societies with opinion leaders: an axiomatization," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(3), pages 671-683, September.
    17. Satoshi Masuya, 2023. "Two Approaches to Estimate the Shapley Value for Convex Partially Defined Games," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    18. Nicolas Andjiga & Sebastien Courtin, 2015. "Coalition configurations and share functions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 225(1), pages 3-25, February.
    19. Ori Haimanko, 2020. "Generalized Coleman-Shapley indices and total-power monotonicity," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(1), pages 299-320, March.
    20. Atteya, T.E.M. & Chakhar, Salem & Labib, Ashraf & Cox, Adam & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2024. "Estimating relative importance of criteria by post-processing dominance-based rough set approach’s outputs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(3), pages 1096-1122.

    More about this item

    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:gamebe:v:20:y:1997:i:2:p:161-168. 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/inca/622836 .

    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.