Null or Zero Players: The Difference between the Shapley Value and the Egalitarian Solution
AbstractA situation in which a finite set of players can generate certain payoffs by cooperation can be described by a cooperative game with transferable utility. A solution for TU-games assigns to every TU-game a distribution of the payoffs that can be earned over the individual players. Two well-known solutions for TU-games are the Shapley value and the egalitarian solution. The Shapley value is characterized in various ways. Most characterizations use some axiom related to null players, i.e. players who contribute nothing to any coalition. We show that in these characterizations, replacing null players by zero players characterizes the egalitarian solution, where a player is a zero player if every coalition containing this player earns zero worth. We illustrate this difference between these two solutions by applying them to auction games.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Tinbergen Institute in its series Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers with number 04-127/1.
Date of creation: 19 Nov 2004
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tinbergen.nl
Null players; zero players; Shapley value; egalitarian solution; strong monotonicity; coalitional monotonicity; auction games;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
- D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - Auctions
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2004-11-30 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Maniquet, F., 2000.
"A Characterization of the Shapley Value in Queueing Problems,"
222, Notre-Dame de la Paix, Sciences Economiques et Sociales.
- Maniquet, Francois, 2003. "A characterization of the Shapley value in queueing problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 90-103, March.
- MANIQUET, François, . "A characterization of the Shapley value in queueing problems," CORE Discussion Papers RP -1662, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Brink, J.R. van den, 1999.
"An Axiomatization of the Shapley Value Using a Fairness Property,"
1999-120, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- René van den Brink, 2002. "An axiomatization of the Shapley value using a fairness property," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 309-319.
- Hart, Sergiu & Mas-Colell, Andreu, 1989. "Potential, Value, and Consistency," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 589-614, May.
- Algaba, A. & Bilbao, J.M. & Brink, J.R. van den & Jiménez-Losada, A., 2000. "Cooperative Games on Antimatroids," Discussion Paper 2000-124, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Graham, Daniel A & Marshall, Robert C & Richard, Jean-Francois, 1990. "Differential Payments within a Bidder Coalition and the Shapley Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 493-510, June.
- Chun, Youngsub, 1989. "A new axiomatization of the shapley value," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 119-130, June.
- Feltkamp, Vincent, 1995.
"Alternative Axiomatic Characterizations of the Shapley and Banzhaf Values,"
International Journal of Game Theory,
Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 179-86.
- Feltkamp, V., 1993. "Alternative Axiomatic Characterizations of the Shapley and Banzhaf Values," Papers 9353, Tilburg - Center for Economic Research.
- Brânzei, R. & Fragnelli, V. & Tijs, S.H., 2000.
"Tree-connected Peer Group Situations and Peer Group Games,"
2000-117, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Brânzei, R. & Fragnelli, V. & Tijs, S.H., 2002. "Tree-connected peer group situations and peer group games," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-91321, Tilburg University.
- Sergiu Hart, 2006. "Shapley Value," Discussion Paper Series dp421, The Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
- Jackson, Matthew O. & Wolinsky, Asher, 1996.
"A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 44-74, October.
- Matthew O. Jackson & Asher Wolinsky, 1994. "A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks," Discussion Papers 1098, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Matthew O. Jackson & Asher Wolinsky, 1995. "A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks," Discussion Papers 1098R, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Rothschild, R., 2001. "On the use of a modified Shapley value to determine the optimal size of a cartel," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 37-47, May.
- Rene van den Brink & Arantza Estevez-Fernandez & Gerard van der Laan & Nigel Moes, 2011. "Independence Axioms for Water Allocation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-128/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- René van den Brink & Yukihiko Funaki, 2004. "Axiomatizations of a Class of Equal Surplus Sharing Solutions for Cooperative Games with Transferable Utility," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-136/1, Tinbergen Institute.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Antoine Maartens (+31 626 - 160 892)).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.