IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/cesptp/hal-00633613.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the measurement of Fragmentation

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-François Caulier

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

In this paper we propose a new party-system fragmentation measure as equivalent number of parties that fully takes into account the pivotal power of parties. The novel approach we adopt in the method of construction for an index of fragmentation allows us to take advantage of the theory of generalized means. We first construct the (class of) quasi-arithmetic mean(s) with Banzhaf power weight function for the party sizes and then, given the average size, we derive an equivalent-number of parties.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-François Caulier, 2010. "On the measurement of Fragmentation," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00633613, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:hal-00633613
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00633613
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00633613/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Federico Valenciano & Annick Laruelle, 2002. "Assessment Of Voting Situations: The Probabilistic Foundations," Working Papers. Serie AD 2002-22, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    2. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    3. Annick Laruelle & Federico Valenciano, 2001. "Shapley-Shubik and Banzhaf Indices Revisited," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 89-104, February.
    4. Dan S. Felsenthal & Moshé Machover, 1998. "The Measurement of Voting Power," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1489.
    5. Molinar, Juan, 1991. "Counting the Number of Parties: An Alternative Index," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1383-1391, December.
    6. Leslie Hannah & J. A. Kay, 1977. "The Measurement of Concentration," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Concentration in Modern Industry, chapter 4, pages 41-63, Palgrave Macmillan.
    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. Nasrudin, Rus'an, 2015. "Does Soft Corruption Make Grease or Sand for Development? Evidence from Road's Special Allocation Fund for Indonesian Districts," MPRA Paper 80578, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Aug 2017.

    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. Jean-François Caulier, 2010. "On the measurement of Fragmentation," Working Papers hal-00633613, HAL.
    2. Vani K. Borooah, 2013. "A general measure of the ‘effective’ number of parties in a political system," Chapters, in: Francisco Cabrillo & Miguel A. Puchades-Navarro (ed.), Constitutional Economics and Public Institutions, chapter 8, pages 146-159, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Benny Geys & Bruno Heyndels, 2006. "Disentangling The Effects Of Political Fragmentation On Voter Turnout: The Flemish Municipal Elections," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 367-387, November.
    4. Frédéric Bobay, 2001. "La réforme du Conseil de l'Union européenne à partir de la théorie des jeux," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 16(2), pages 3-61.
    5. Federico Valenciano & Annick Laruelle & Ricardo Martínez, 2004. "On The Difficulty Of Making Decisions Within The Eu-25," Working Papers. Serie AD 2004-15, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    6. Oscar Bajo & Rafael Salas, 2002. "Inequality foundations of concentration measures: An application to the Hannah-Kay indices," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 311-316.
    7. repec:wsr:wpaper:y:2010:i:062 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    9. Mika Widgren, 2003. "Power in the Design of Constitutional Rules," European Economy Group Working Papers 23, European Economy Group.
    10. Leech, Dennis, 2002. "The Use Of Coleman'S Power Indices To Inform The Choice Of Voting Rule With Reference To The Imf Governing Body And The Eu Council Of Ministers," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 645, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    11. 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.
    12. Bhattacherjee, Sanjay & Sarkar, Palash, 2017. "Correlation and inequality in weighted majority voting games," MPRA Paper 83168, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Barua, Rana & Chakravarty, Satya R. & Roy, Sonali, 2006. "On the Coleman indices of voting power," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 273-289, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Mika Widgrén, 2003. "Enlargements and the Principles of Designing EU - Decision-Making Procedures," CESifo Working Paper Series 903, CESifo.
    16. Barua, Rana & Chakravarty, Satya R. & Sarkar, Palash, 2009. "Minimal-axiom characterizations of the Coleman and Banzhaf indices of voting power," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 367-375, November.
    17. Arash Abizadeh & Adrian Vetta, 2021. "A Recursive Measure of Voting Power that Satisfies Reasonable Postulates," Papers 2105.03006, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    18. Bertrand Mbama Engoulou & Pierre Wambo & Lawrence Diffo Lambo, 2023. "Banzhaf–Coleman–Dubey–Shapley sensitivity index for simple multichoice voting games," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 328(2), pages 1349-1364, September.
    19. Stefan Napel & Mika Widgren, 2004. "Power Measurement as Sensitivity Analysis," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(4), pages 517-538, October.
    20. Kazuya Kikuchi & Yukio Koriyama, 2019. "The Winner-Take-All Dilemma," ISER Discussion Paper 1059r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Dec 2019.
    21. 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.

    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:hal:cesptp:hal-00633613. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.