IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dpr/wpaper/1176.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost of complexity in implementing the Shapley value by choosing a proposer through a bidding procedure

Author

Listed:
  • Michela Chessa
  • Nobuyuki Hanaki
  • Aymeric Lardon
  • Takashi Yamada

Abstract

We experimentally compare a simplified version of two mechanisms that implement the Shapley value as an (ex ante) equilibrium outcome of a noncooperative bargaining procedure: one proposed by Hart and Mas-Colell (1996, H-MC) and the other by Pérez-Castrillo and Wettstein (2001, PC-W). While H-MC induces the Shapley value only on average, PC-W does so as a unique equilibrium outcome by introducing an additional bidding stage on top of H-MC. We investigate the effect of this additional complexity that PC-W introduces on the resulting outcomes such as the frequency of grand coalition formation, efficiency, and the distance between the realized allocation and the Shapley value. Our experiment shows that H-MC not only results in significantly greater efficiency than PC-W, but also the average allocation is closer to the Shapley value for those groups that formed the grand coalition.

Suggested Citation

  • Michela Chessa & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aymeric Lardon & Takashi Yamada, 2022. "Cost of complexity in implementing the Shapley value by choosing a proposer through a bidding procedure," ISER Discussion Paper 1176, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    • Handle: RePEc:dpr:wpaper:1176
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/static/resources/docs/dp/2022/DP1176.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hart, Oliver & Moore, John, 1990. "Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1119-1158, December.
    2. Michela Chessa & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aymeric Lardon & Takashi Yamada, 2021. "An Experiment on Demand Commitment Bargaining," ISER Discussion Paper 1152, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    3. Shengwu Li, 2017. "Obviously Strategy-Proof Mechanisms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(11), pages 3257-3287, November.
    4. Perez-Castrillo, David & Wettstein, David, 2001. "Bidding for the Surplus : A Non-cooperative Approach to the Shapley Value," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 274-294, October.
    5. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    6. Krishna, Vijay & Serrano, Roberto, 1995. "Perfect Equilibria of a Model of N-Person Noncooperative Bargaining," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 24(3), pages 259-272.
    7. Winter, Eyal, 1994. "The Demand Commitment Bargaining and Snowballing Cooperation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 4(2), pages 255-273, March.
    8. Bezalel Peleg & Peter Sudhölter, 2007. "Introduction to the Theory of Cooperative Games," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, edition 0, number 978-3-540-72945-7, March.
    9. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    10. Takaaki Abe & Yukihiko Funaki & Taro Shinoda, 2021. "Invitation Games: An Experimental Approach to Coalition Formation," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, August.
    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. Bol, Damien & Blais, André & Coulombe, Maxime & Laslier, Jean-François & Pilet, Jean-Benoit, 2023. "Choosing an electoral rule: Values and self-interest in the lab," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    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. Chessa, Michela & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Lardon, Aymeric & Yamada, Takashi, 2022. "The effect of choosing a proposer through a bidding procedure in implementing the Shapley value," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    2. Michela Chessa & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aymeric Lardon & Takashi Yamada, 2023. "An Experiment on Demand Commitment Bargaining," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 589-609, June.
    3. Chessa, Michela & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Lardon, Aymeric & Yamada, Takashi, 2023. "An experiment on the Nash program: A comparison of two strategic mechanisms implementing the Shapley value," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 88-104.
    4. Michela Chessa & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aymeric Lardon & Takashi Yamada, 2021. "An Experiment on the Nash Program: Comparing two Mechanisms Implementing the Shapley Value," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-07, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    5. Michela Chessa & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aymeric Lardon & Takashi Yamada, 2021. "An Experiment on Demand Commitment Bargaining," ISER Discussion Paper 1152, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    6. Roberto Serrano, 2005. "Fifty years of the Nash program, 1953-2003," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(2), pages 219-258, May.
    7. Emililo Calvo, 2004. "Single NTU-value solutions," Game Theory and Information 0405004, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Jun 2004.
    8. Roberto Serrano, 2007. "Cooperative Games: Core and Shapley Value," Working Papers wp2007_0709, CEMFI.
    9. Gomes, Armando & Hart, Sergiu & Mas-Colell, Andreu, 1999. "Finite Horizon Bargaining and the Consistent Field," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 204-228, May.
    10. Yuan Ju & David Wettstein, 2009. "Implementing cooperative solution concepts: a generalized bidding approach," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(2), pages 307-330, May.
    11. Perez-Castrillo, David & Wettstein, David, 2001. "Bidding for the Surplus : A Non-cooperative Approach to the Shapley Value," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 274-294, October.
    12. Takaaki Abe & Satoshi Nakada, 2023. "Core stability of the Shapley value for cooperative games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 60(4), pages 523-543, May.
    13. Andrew M. Davis & Stephen Leider, 2018. "Contracts and Capacity Investment in Supply Chains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 403-421, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Marco Rogna, 2022. "The Burning Coalition Bargaining Model," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(3), pages 735-768, October.
    16. Vidal-Puga, Juan J., 2008. "Forming coalitions and the Shapley NTU value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 190(3), pages 659-671, November.
    17. Michela Chessa & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aymeric Lardon & Takashi Yamada, 2023. "An Experimental Nash Program: A Comparison of Non-Cooperative v.s. Cooperative Bargaining Experiments," ISER Discussion Paper 1221, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    18. Damien Bol & Jean-François Laslier & Matías Núñez, 2022. "Two Person Bargaining Mechanisms: A Laboratory Experiment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 1145-1177, December.
    19. Ju, Yuan, 2012. "Reject and renegotiate: The Shapley value in multilateral bargaining," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 431-436.
    20. Juan Vidal-Puga, 2005. "Implementation of the Levels Structure Value," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 191-209, July.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:dpr:wpaper:1176. 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: Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isosujp.html .

    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.