IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i22p4195-d968024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cooperative Purchasing with General Discount: A Game Theoretical Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jose A. García-Martínez

    (Departamento de. Estudios Económicos y Financieros, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, 03202 Elche, Spain)

  • Ana Meca

    (I. U. Centro de Investigación Operativa, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, 03202 Elche, Spain)

  • G. Alexander Vergara

    (Interuniversity Doctorate in Economics (DEcIDE), I. U. Centro de Investigación Operativa, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, 03202 Elche, Spain
    Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad de San Buenaventura Cali, Cali 760031, Colombia)

Abstract

In some situations, sellers of certain commodities usually provide price discounts for large orders according to a decreasing unit price function. Buyers of such commodities can cooperate and form purchasing groups to benefit from these price discounts. A natural way to allocate the corresponding cost reductions is the equal price rule. We analyze this situation as a cooperative game. We show that when the decreasing unit price function is linear, the equal price rule coincides with the Shapley value and the nucleolus of the cooperative game. However, some buyers may argue that the equal price rule is not acceptable because it favors those who buy just a few units of the product. This can be more problematic when the decreasing unit price function is nonlinear: In that case, the equal price rule loses some of its good properties and it no longer matches the Shapley value or the nucleolus. Unlike the linear case, in this nonlinear case, the Shapley value and nucleolus do not assign the same price to all agents, so there are different price rules. However, they have a computability problem, as both are very laborious to calculate for a large number of agents. To find a suitable alternative, we first study the properties that a different price rule should have in this situation. Second, we propose a family of different price rules that hold those properties and are easy to calculate for a large number of agents. This family of different price rules provides buyers (companies, institutions, consumers, etc.) with an easy-to-implement method which ensures stability in cooperative purchasing.

Suggested Citation

  • Jose A. García-Martínez & Ana Meca & G. Alexander Vergara, 2022. "Cooperative Purchasing with General Discount: A Game Theoretical Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(22), pages 1-20, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:22:p:4195-:d:968024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/22/4195/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/22/4195/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kar, Anirban & Mitra, Manipushpak & Mutuswami, Suresh, 2009. "On the coincidence of the prenucleolus and the Shapley value," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 16-25, January.
    2. Schotanus, Fredo & Telgen, Jan & de Boer, Luitzen, 2008. "Unfair allocation of gains under the Equal Price allocation method in purchasing groups," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 162-176, May.
    3. Borm, Peter & Keiding, H & McLean, R.P. & Oortwijn, S & Tijs, S, 1992. "The Compromise Value for NTU-Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 21(2), pages 175-189.
    4. Xin Chen, 2009. "Inventory Centralization Games with Price-Dependent Demand and Quantity Discount," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1394-1406, December.
    5. Ana Meca & Luis Guardiola & Andrés Toledo, 2007. "p-additive games: a class of totally balanced games arising from inventory situations with temporary discounts," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 15(2), pages 322-340, December.
    6. Joris van de Klundert & Jeroen Kuipers & Frits C. R. Spieksma & Maarten Winkels, 2005. "Selecting Telecommunication Carriers to Obtain Volume Discounts," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 124-132, April.
    7. Schotanus, Fredo & Telgen, Jan & de Boer, Luitzen, 2009. "Unraveling quantity discounts," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 510-521, June.
    8. Moulin, Herve & Shenker, Scott, 1992. "Serial Cost Sharing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(5), pages 1009-1037, September.
    9. SCHMEIDLER, David, 1969. "The nucleolus of a characteristic function game," LIDAM Reprints CORE 44, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    10. Albizuri, M. Josune & Zarzuelo, Jose M., 2007. "The dual serial cost-sharing rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 150-163, March.
    11. Munson, Charles L. & Jackson, Jonathan, 2015. "Quantity Discounts: An Overview and Practical Guide for Buyers and Sellers," Foundations and Trends(R) in Technology, Information and Operations Management, now publishers, vol. 8(1-2), pages 1-130, June.
    12. Tella, Eija & Virolainen, Veli-Matti, 2005. "Motives behind purchasing consortia," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 161-168, January.
    13. Luo, Chunlin & Zhou, Xiaoyang & Lev, Benjamin, 2022. "Core, shapley value, nucleolus and nash bargaining solution: A Survey of recent developments and applications in operations management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    14. Mirjam Groote Schaarsberg & Peter Borm & Herbert Hamers & Hans Reijnierse, 2013. "Game theoretic analysis of maximum cooperative purchasing situations," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(8), pages 607-624, December.
    15. Behzad Hezarkhani & Greys Sošić, 2019. "Who’s Afraid of Strategic Behavior? Mechanisms for Group Purchasing," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 28(4), pages 933-954, April.
    16. Daniel Granot & Greys Sov{s}i'{c}, 2005. "Formation of Alliances in Internet-Based Supply Exchanges," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(1), pages 92-105, January.
    17. Das, T. K. & Teng, Bing-Sheng, 2001. "A risk perception model of alliance structuring," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 1-29.
    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. Robert Ulewicz & Dominika Siwiec & Andrzej Pacana, 2023. "A New Model of Pro-Quality Decision Making in Terms of Products’ Improvement Considering Customer Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-22, May.

    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. Schotanus, Fredo & Telgen, Jan & de Boer, Luitzen, 2008. "Unfair allocation of gains under the Equal Price allocation method in purchasing groups," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 162-176, May.
    2. Schouten, Jop, 2022. "Cooperation, allocation and strategy in interactive decision-making," Other publications TiSEM d5d41448-8033-4f6b-8ec0-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Mirjam Groote Schaarsberg & Peter Borm & Herbert Hamers & Hans Reijnierse, 2013. "Game theoretic analysis of maximum cooperative purchasing situations," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(8), pages 607-624, December.
    4. Youngsub Chun & Manipushpak Mitra & Suresh Mutuswami, 2019. "Recent developments in the queueing problem," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 27(1), pages 1-23, April.
    5. Mingming Leng & Chunlin Luo & Liping Liang, 2021. "Multiplayer Allocations in the Presence of Diminishing Marginal Contributions: Cooperative Game Analysis and Applications in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2891-2903, May.
    6. Drechsel, J. & Kimms, A., 2010. "Computing core allocations in cooperative games with an application to cooperative procurement," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 310-321, November.
    7. Schouten, Jop & Groote Schaarsberg, Mirjam & Borm, Peter, 2020. "Cost Sharing Methods for Capacity Restricted Cooperative Purchasing Situations," Discussion Paper 2020-017, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    8. Behzad Hezarkhani & Greys Sošić, 2019. "Who’s Afraid of Strategic Behavior? Mechanisms for Group Purchasing," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 28(4), pages 933-954, April.
    9. García-Martínez, Jose A. & Mayor-Serra, Antonio J. & Meca, Ana, 2020. "Efficient Effort Equilibrium in Cooperation with Pairwise Cost Reduction," MPRA Paper 105604, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Justin Leroux, 2006. "A discussion of the consistency axiom in cost-allocation problems," Cahiers de recherche 06-13, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée.
    11. J Arin & V Feltkamp & M Montero, 2012. "Coalitional Games with Veto Players: Myopic and Rational Behavior," Discussion Papers 2012-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    12. M. Albizuri & M. Álvarez-Mozos, 2016. "The $$a$$ a -serial cost sharing rule," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 73-86, March.
    13. J. Arin & V. Feltkamp & M. Montero, 2015. "A bargaining procedure leading to the serial rule in games with veto players," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 41-66, June.
    14. Minyoung Yea & Seokhyun Chung & Taesu Cheong & Daeki Kim, 2018. "The Sharing of Benefits from a Logistics Alliance Based on a Hub-Spoke Network: A Cooperative Game Theoretic Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    15. Trudeau, Christian & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2020. "Clique games: A family of games with coincidence between the nucleolus and the Shapley value," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 8-14.
    16. Albizuri, M. Josune, 2010. "The [alpha]-serial cost-sharing rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 24-29, July.
    17. Yokote, Koji & Funaki, Yukihiko & Kamijo, Yoshio, 2017. "Coincidence of the Shapley value with other solutions satisfying covariance," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 1-9.
    18. José M. Jiménez Gómez & María del Carmen Marco Gil & Pedro Gadea Blanco, 2010. "Some game-theoretic grounds for meeting people half-way," Working Papers. Serie AD 2010-04, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    19. Vernon N. Hsu & Guoming Lai & Baozhuang Niu & Wenqiang Xiao, 2017. "Leader-Based Collective Bargaining: Cooperation Mechanism and Incentive Analysis," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 72-83, February.
    20. Moulin, Herve, 2002. "Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 289-357, Elsevier.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:22:p:4195-:d:968024. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.