IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v52y2006i1p88-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new weight scheme for the Shapley value

Author

Listed:
  • Haeringer, Guillaume

Abstract

It is well known since Owen (Manag. Sci. 1968) that the weights in the weighted Shapley value cannot be interpreted as a measure of power (i.e. of the ability to bargain) of the players. This paper proposes a new weight scheme for the Shapley value. Weights in this framework have to be interpreted as a measure of bargaining power. Two different axiomatic characterizations of this new value are proposed: one including the weights in the axioms and one without.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Haeringer, Guillaume, 2006. "A new weight scheme for the Shapley value," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 88-98, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:52:y:2006:i:1:p:88-98
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-4896(06)00023-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nowak, A.S. & Radzik, T., 1995. "On axiomatizations of the weighted Shapley values," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 389-405.
    2. Ehud Kalai & Dov Samet, 1983. "On Weighted Shapley Values," Discussion Papers 602, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    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. Conrado M. Manuel & Daniel Martín, 2020. "A Monotonic Weighted Shapley Value," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 627-654, August.
    2. Jean-François Caulier & Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2015. "An allocation rule for dynamic random network formation processes," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 60(2), pages 283-313, October.
    3. Niharika Kakoty & Surajit Borkotokey & Rajnish Kumar & Abhijit Bora, 2024. "Weighted Myerson value for Network games," Papers 2402.11464, arXiv.org.
    4. Ghintran, Amandine, 2013. "Weighted position values," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 157-163.
    5. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01207823 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2012. "The Harsanyi paradox and the “right to talk” in bargaining among coalitions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 214-224.
    7. Béal, Sylvain & Ferrières, Sylvain & Rémila, Eric & Solal, Philippe, 2018. "The proportional Shapley value and applications," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 93-112.
    8. van den Nouweland, Anne & Slikker, Marco, 2012. "An axiomatic characterization of the position value for network situations," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 266-271.
    9. Demuynck, Thomas & Rock, Bram De & Ginsburgh, Victor, 2016. "The transfer paradox in welfare space," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-4.
    10. Wilson da C. Vieira, 2015. "Allocation of costs to clean up a polluted river: an axiomatic approach," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 1216-1226.
    11. Pierre Dehez, 2017. "On Harsanyi Dividends and Asymmetric Values," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(03), pages 1-36, September.
    12. Gómez-Rúa, María & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2010. "The axiomatic approach to three values in games with coalition structure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 795-806, December.
    13. C. Manuel & D. Martín, 2021. "A value for communication situations with players having different bargaining abilities," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 301(1), pages 161-182, June.
    14. Niharika Kakoty & Surajit Borkotokey & Rajnish Kumar & Abhijit Bora, 2023. "Weighted position value for Network games," Papers 2308.03494, arXiv.org.
    15. Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo & David Wettstein, 2010. "Dividends and weighted values in games with externalities," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 39(1), pages 177-184, March.
    16. Radzik, Tadeusz, 2012. "A new look at the role of players’ weights in the weighted Shapley value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 407-416.
    17. Marden, Jason R. & Shamma, Jeff S., 2015. "Game Theory and Distributed Control****Supported AFOSR/MURI projects #FA9550-09-1-0538 and #FA9530-12-1-0359 and ONR projects #N00014-09-1-0751 and #N0014-12-1-0643," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    18. Dimitrov, Dinko & Haake, Claus-Jochen, 2011. "An axiomatic approach to composite solutions," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 385, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    19. Julia Belau, 2018. "The class of ASN-position values," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 65-99, January.
    20. Borkotokey, Surajit & Kumar, Rajnish & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2015. "A solution concept for network games: The role of multilateral interactions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(3), pages 912-920.
    21. Estela Sánchez-Rodríguez & Miguel Ángel Mirás Calvo & Carmen Quinteiro Sandomingo & Iago Núñez Lugilde, 2024. "Coalition-weighted Shapley values," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 53(2), pages 547-577, June.
    22. Jason R. Marden & Adam Wierman, 2013. "Distributed Welfare Games," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 155-168, February.

    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. 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.
    2. Harald Wiese, 2012. "Values with exogenous payments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 485-508, April.
    3. Casajus, André & Huettner, Frank, 2014. "Weakly monotonic solutions for cooperative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 162-172.
    4. Casajus, André, 2018. "Symmetry, mutual dependence, and the weighted Shapley values," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 105-123.
    5. Manfred Besner, 2020. "Value dividends, the Harsanyi set and extensions, and the proportional Harsanyi solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(3), pages 851-873, September.
    6. Kranich, Laurence, 1997. "Cooperative Games with Hedonic Coalitions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 83-97, January.
    7. Billot, Antoine & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 2005. "How to share when context matters: The Mobius value as a generalized solution for cooperative games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1007-1029, December.
    8. Besner, Manfred, 2017. "Weighted Shapley levels values," MPRA Paper 82978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Ghintran, Amandine, 2013. "Weighted position values," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 157-163.
    10. Stefano Moretti & Fioravante Patrone, 2008. "Transversality of the Shapley value," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 16(1), pages 1-41, July.
    11. Gérard Hamiache, 2011. "Graph monotonic values," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 287-307, July.
    12. Michela Chessa & Vito Fragnelli, 2011. "Embedding Classical Indices in the FP Family," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 289-305, November.
    13. David Housman, 2002. "Linear and symmetric allocation methods for partially defined cooperative games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 30(3), pages 377-404.
    14. Besner, Manfred, 2018. "Two classes of weighted values for coalition structures with extensions to level structures," MPRA Paper 87742, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Emilio Calvo, 2008. "Random marginal and random removal values," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 37(4), pages 533-563, December.
    16. Sylvain Béal & Sylvain Ferrières & Adriana Navarro‐Ramos & Philippe Solal, 2023. "Axiomatic characterizations of the family of Weighted priority values," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 19(4), pages 787-816, December.
    17. Gustavo Bergantiños & Juan Vidal-Puga, 2007. "The optimistic TU game in minimum cost spanning tree problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 36(2), pages 223-239, October.
    18. Ciftci, B.B. & Dimitrov, D.A., 2006. "Stable Coalition Structures in Simple Games with Veto Control," Other publications TiSEM fd2410e3-8e9d-4319-86fb-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. André Casajus & Harald Wiese, 2017. "Scarcity, competition, and value," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(2), pages 295-310, May.
    20. Welter, Dominik & Napel, Stefan, 2016. "Responsibility-based allocation of cartel damages," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145886, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games

    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:matsoc:v:52:y:2006:i:1:p:88-98. 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/505565 .

    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.