IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/netnom/v17y2016i3d10.1007_s11066-016-9112-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revenue sharing in network utility maximization problems

Author

Listed:
  • Isabel Amigo

    (Télécom Bretagne)

  • Pablo Belzarena

    (Universidad de la República)

  • Sandrine Vaton

    (Télécom Bretagne)

Abstract

Alliances arise in a wide variety of domains, when a group of countries, political parties, people or other entities agree to work together because of shared interests or aims. They make sense, if the output obtained is somehow better than the outcome of acting individually. Revenue or cost sharing is key when determining if individuals are better off by contributing to an alliance or not. In our alliance each member owns a unique resource –or set of resources–, which is given to the alliance. The alliance sells services, which are supported thanks to one or a set of these resources. We focus on alliances that sell services in such a way that the total revenue of the alliance is maximized. We show that this kind of problems can be modeled through a Network Utility Maximization problem. We subsequently explore the problem of revenue sharing among the members of the alliance. Such a problem is a complex one since the interests of all participants must be ensured and correct incentives must be provided. We formally formulate the members’ interests through a set of properties the revenue sharing method should verify. We then discuss the existing methods for revenue sharing and conclude that none of them verifies the needed properties for the case of a revenue maximizing alliance. We finally propose a revenue sharing method based on projecting the contributions of each member of the alliance into an economic stable set. Through an exhaustive simulative study we conclude that our method provides, in addition to economic stability, fairness among members and the right incentives to them. Through our analysis Network Service Provider alliances, which sell quality-assured data transport services, are considered as an application example.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabel Amigo & Pablo Belzarena & Sandrine Vaton, 2016. "Revenue sharing in network utility maximization problems," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 255-284, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:netnom:v:17:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11066-016-9112-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11066-016-9112-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11066-016-9112-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11066-016-9112-4?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. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Friedman, Eric & Moulin, Herve, 1999. "Three Methods to Share Joint Costs or Surplus," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 275-312, August.
    3. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    4. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, April.
    5. Jens Leth Hougaard, 2009. "An Introduction to Allocation Rules," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-642-01828-2, December.
    6. Anna Bogomolnaia & Ron Holzman & Hervé Moulin, 2010. "Sharing the Cost of a Capacity Network," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 173-192, February.
    7. Moulin, Herve & Laigret, Francois, 2011. "Equal-need sharing of a network under connectivity constraints," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 314-320, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Juarez, Ruben & Ko, Chiu Yu & Xue, Jingyi, 2018. "Sharing sequential values in a network," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 734-779.
    2. Venkat Venkatasubramanian & Yu Luo, 2018. "How much income inequality is fair? Nash bargaining solution and its connection to entropy," Papers 1806.05262, arXiv.org.
    3. Chander, Parkash & Wooders, Myrna, 2020. "Subgame-perfect cooperation in an extensive game," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    4. Hanato, Shunsuke, 2019. "Simultaneous-offers bargaining with a mediator," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 361-379.
    5. Bendoly, Elliot & van Wezel, Wout & Bachrach, Daniel G. (ed.), 2015. "The Handbook of Behavioral Operations Management: Social and Psychological Dynamics in Production and Service Settings," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199357222.
    6. 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.
    7. Saša Zorc & Ilia Tsetlin, 2020. "Deadlines, Offer Timing, and the Search for Alternatives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 927-948, May.
    8. Allan Collard-Wexler & Gautam Gowrisankaran & Robin S. Lee, 2019. ""Nash-in-Nash" Bargaining: A Microfoundation for Applied Work," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 163-195.
    9. Volij, Oscar, 2002. "A remark on bargaining and non-expected utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 17-24, September.
    10. Hu, Tai-Wei & Rocheteau, Guillaume, 2020. "Bargaining under liquidity constraints: Unified strategic foundations of the Nash and Kalai solutions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    11. Volij, Oscar & Winter, Eyal, 2002. "On risk aversion and bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 120-140, October.
    12. Parkash Chander & Myrna Wooders, 2016. "The Subgame Perfect Core," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 16-00006, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    13. Ferenc Forgó & János Fülöp, 2008. "On the implementation of the L-Nash bargaining solution in two-person bargaining games," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 16(4), pages 359-377, December.
    14. Roberto Serrano, 2003. "The Theory of Implementation of Social Choice Rules," Working Papers 2003-19, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    15. Ruben Juarez & Michael Wu, 2019. "Routing-Proofness in Congestion-Prone Networks," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, April.
    16. Kim, Taekwon & Jeon, Yongil, 2009. "Stationary perfect equilibria of an n-person noncooperative bargaining game and cooperative solution concepts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(3), pages 922-932, May.
    17. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    18. Matsui, Kenji, 2020. "Optimal bargaining timing of a wholesale price for a manufacturer with a retailer in a dual-channel supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(1), pages 225-236.
    19. 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.
    20. Thomas M. Humphrey, 1996. "The early history of the box diagram," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Win, pages 37-75.

    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:kap:netnom:v:17:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11066-016-9112-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.