IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v215y2014i1p49-6110.1007-s10479-013-1411-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The bargaining set for sharing the power

Author

Listed:
  • Michela Chessa
  • Vito Fragnelli

Abstract

The evaluation of the power of the parties of a Parliament is usually carried out following a static approach, counting their numbers of seats and possible ideological relations among them. In this paper we propose a dynamic model in which parties may blackmail each other in order to increase their power at the expense of others. This model may be solved in terms of the Bargaining Set (Aumann and Maschler in Advances in game theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1964 ), a set valued solution, in contrast to the classical power indices that are point valued; so it may be used to check the robustness of a power division taking into account possible blackmailing activities. The paper is mainly based on the idea of proposing an existing instrument, the Bargaining Set, as power index to analyze this blackmailing situation. The computational complexity limits the possibility of applying it to real-world situations, but the possibility of making the computation easier is shown using some examples. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Michela Chessa & Vito Fragnelli, 2014. "The bargaining set for sharing the power," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 49-61, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:215:y:2014:i:1:p:49-61:10.1007/s10479-013-1411-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-013-1411-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-013-1411-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-013-1411-7?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. R J Johnston, 1978. "On the Measurement of Power: Some Reactions to Laver," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 10(8), pages 907-914, August.
    2. Mas-Colell, Andreu, 1989. "An equivalence theorem for a bargaining set," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 129-139, April.
    3. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, December.
    4. Lloyd S. Shapley, 1967. "On balanced sets and cores," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 453-460.
    5. Einy, Ezra & Wettstein, David, 1996. "Equivalence between Bargaining Sets and the Core in Simple Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(1), pages 65-71.
    6. Michela Chessa & Vito Fragnelli, 2013. "Open Problems In Veto Theory," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 1-15.
    7. Zhou Lin, 1994. "A New Bargaining Set of an N-Person Game and Endogenous Coalition Formation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 512-526, May.
    8. Shapley, L. S. & Shubik, Martin, 1954. "A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 787-792, September.
    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. Vito Fragnelli & Gianfranco Gambarelli, 2014. "Further open problems in cooperative games," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 24(4), pages 51-62.

    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. Michel Le Breton & Karine Van Der Straeten, 2017. "Alliances Électorales et Gouvernementales : La Contribution de la Théorie des Jeux Coopératifs à la Science Politique," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 127(4), pages 637-736.
    2. László Á. Kóczy, 2018. "Partition Function Form Games," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, number 978-3-319-69841-0, March.
    3. Sun, Ning & Trockel, Walter & Yang, Zaifu, 2008. "Competitive outcomes and endogenous coalition formation in an n-person game," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(7-8), pages 853-860, July.
    4. repec:wut:journl:v:3-4:y:2011:id:1012 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Josep Maria Izquierdo & Carles Rafels, 2018. "The core and the steady bargaining set for convex games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 35-54, March.
    6. Jesús Getán & Josep Izquierdo & Jesús Montes & Carles Rafels, 2015. "The bargaining set for almost-convex games," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 225(1), pages 83-89, February.
    7. Elena Iñarra & Roberto Serrano & Ken-Ichi Shimomura, 2020. "The Nucleolus, the Kernel, and the Bargaining Set: An Update," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 71(2), pages 225-266.
    8. Zaremba Leszek & Zaremba Cezary S. & Suchenek Marek, 2017. "Modification Of Shapley Value And Its Implementation In Decision Making," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 257-272, October.
    9. Chessa Michela & Vito Fragnelli, 2011. "Quantitative evaluation of veto power," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 21(3-4), pages 5-19.
    10. László Á. Kóczy, 2016. "Power Indices When Players can Commit to Reject Coalitions," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 77-91, August.
    11. Borkowski, Agnieszka, 2003. "Machtverteilung Im Ministerrat Nach Dem Vertrag Von Nizza Und Den Konventsvorschlagen In Einer Erweiterten Europaischen Union," IAMO Discussion Papers 14887, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    12. Thijssen, J.J.J., 2003. "Investment under uncertainty, market evolution and coalition spillovers in a game theoretic perspective," Other publications TiSEM 672073a6-492e-4621-8d4a-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Izquierdo, Josep M. & Rafels, Carles, 2001. "Average Monotonic Cooperative Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 174-192, August.
    14. Montero, Maria, 2002. "Non-cooperative bargaining in apex games and the kernel," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 309-321, November.
    15. Vito Fragnelli & Gianfranco Gambarelli, 2014. "Further open problems in cooperative games," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 24(4), pages 51-62.
    16. Carreras, Francesc, 2005. "A decisiveness index for simple games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 370-387, June.
    17. 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," Economic Research Papers 269458, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    18. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2007. "Influence Indices," Post-Print halshs-00142479, HAL.
    19. Gonzalez, Stéphane & Grabisch, Michel, 2016. "Multicoalitional solutions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-10.
    20. Julien Reynaud & Fabien Lange & Łukasz Gątarek & Christian Thimann, 2011. "Proximity in Coalition Building," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 3(3), pages 111-132, September.
    21. Javier Hervés-Estévez & Emma Moreno-García, 2018. "A limit result on bargaining sets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(2), pages 327-341, August.

    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:spr:annopr:v:215:y:2014:i:1:p:49-61:10.1007/s10479-013-1411-7. 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.