IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v65y2013i2p105-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On a family of values for TU-games generalizing the Shapley value

Author

Listed:
  • Radzik, Tadeusz
  • Driessen, Theo

Abstract

In this paper we study a family of efficient, symmetric and linear values for TU-games, described by some formula generalizing the Shapley value. These values appear to have surprising properties described in terms of the axioms: Fair treatment, monotonicity and two types of acceptability. The results obtained are discussed in the context of the Shapley value, the solidarity value, the least square prenucleolus and the consensus value.

Suggested Citation

  • Radzik, Tadeusz & Driessen, Theo, 2013. "On a family of values for TU-games generalizing the Shapley value," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 105-111.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:65:y:2013:i:2:p:105-111
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2012.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489612000959
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2012.10.002?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. Yuan Ju & Peter Borm & Pieter Ruys, 2007. "The consensus value: a new solution concept for cooperative games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(4), pages 685-703, June.
    2. 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.
    3. René Brink & Yukihiko Funaki, 2009. "Axiomatizations of a Class of Equal Surplus Sharing Solutions for TU-Games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 303-340, September.
    4. Ruiz, Luis M & Valenciano, Federico & Zarzuelo, Jose M, 1996. "The Least Square Prenucleolus and the Least Square Nucleolus. Two Values for TU Games Based on the Excess Vector," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(1), pages 113-134.
    5. Nowak, Andrzej S & Radzik, Tadeusz, 1994. "A Solidarity Value for n-Person Transferable Utility Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 23(1), pages 43-48.
    6. Hart, Sergiu & Mas-Colell, Andreu, 1996. "Bargaining and Value," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 357-380, March.
    7. Ruiz, Luis M. & Valenciano, Federico & Zarzuelo, Jose M., 1998. "The Family of Least Square Values for Transferable Utility Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 109-130, July.
    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. Casajus, André & Huettner, Frank, 2014. "On a class of solidarity values," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(2), pages 583-591.
    2. Yokote, Koji & Kongo, Takumi & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2018. "The balanced contributions property for equal contributors," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 113-124.
    3. Borkotokey, Surajit & Choudhury, Dhrubajit & Kumar, Rajnish & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2020. "Consolidating Marginalism and Egalitarianism: A New Value for Transferable Utility Games," QBS Working Paper Series 2020/12, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's Business School.

    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. Calvo, Emilio & Gutiérrez-López, Esther, 2021. "Recursive and bargaining values," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 97-106.
    2. Emilio Calvo Ramón & Esther Gutiérrez-López, 2022. "The equal collective gains value in cooperative games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 51(1), pages 249-278, March.
    3. Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David & Wettstein, David, 2018. "Values for environments with externalities – The average approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 49-64.
    4. Gutiérrez-López, Esther, 2020. "Axiomatic characterizations of the egalitarian solidarity values," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 109-115.
    5. Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2017. "Axiomatization and implementation of a class of solidarity values for TU-games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 61-94, June.
    6. Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2015. "A Class of Solidarity Allocation Rules for TU-games," Working Papers 2015-03, CRESE.
    7. Francisco Sanchez-Sanchez & Ruben Juarez & Luis Hernandez-Lamoneda, 2008. "Solutions without dummy axiom for TU cooperative games," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9.
    8. René Brink & Yukihiko Funaki, 2015. "Implementation and axiomatization of discounted Shapley values," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(2), pages 329-344, September.
    9. Tadeusz Radzik & Theo Driessen, 2016. "Modeling values for TU-games using generalized versions of consistency, standardness and the null player property," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 83(2), pages 179-205, April.
    10. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2008:i:1:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Kamijo, Yoshio & Kongo, Takumi, 2012. "Whose deletion does not affect your payoff? The difference between the Shapley value, the egalitarian value, the solidarity value, and the Banzhaf value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(3), pages 638-646.
    12. Sylvain Béal & Florian Navarro, 2020. "Necessary versus equal players in axiomatic studies," Working Papers 2020-01, CRESE.
    13. Tadeusz Radzik, 2017. "On an extension of the concept of TU-games and their values," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 86(1), pages 149-170, August.
    14. Ander Perez-Orive & Andrea Caggese, 2017. "Capital Misallocation and Secular Stagnation," 2017 Meeting Papers 382, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    15. Béal, Sylvain & Rémila, Eric & Solal, Philippe, 2015. "Preserving or removing special players: What keeps your payoff unchanged in TU-games?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 23-31.
    16. Wenna Wang & Hao Sun & Rene (J.R.) van den Brink & Genjiu Xu, 2018. "The family of ideal values for cooperative games," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-002/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. René Brink & Yukihiko Funaki & Yuan Ju, 2013. "Reconciling marginalism with egalitarianism: consistency, monotonicity, and implementation of egalitarian Shapley values," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 693-714, March.
    18. Wenna Wang & Hao Sun & René Brink & Genjiu Xu, 2019. "The Family of Ideal Values for Cooperative Games," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 180(3), pages 1065-1086, March.
    19. 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.
    20. Radzik, Tadeusz, 2013. "Is the solidarity value close to the equal split value?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 195-202.
    21. Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2015. "Axioms of invariance for TU-games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(4), pages 891-902, November.

    More about this item

    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:eee:matsoc:v:65:y:2013:i:2:p:105-111. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565 .

    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.