IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rnp/ecopol/ep1315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pure competition, the coalition force and the equitable sharing

Author

Listed:
  • Shapley, Lloyd

    (RAND corporation)

  • Shubik, Martin

    (Yale University)

Abstract

This article is related to the conceptual framework of the theory of economic competition, as well as with the corresponding effect of the new solution concept, borrowed from the mathematical theory of games. We consider three basic principle of distribution in economic society - pure competition, the coalition forces and the equitable distribution of - and demonstrate how they allow to form three different approaches to the "decision" of the mathematical model of the market. Two such solutions, competitive balance and core, is closely related, despite the sharp differences in the interpretation of the heuristic. Our goal is to introduce in the economic analysis of the decisions of the third - the value of the game, as well as comparing and contrasting it with the other two. As is the case with core decision based on the value of the game it assumes that the market is based on the league game in which a plurality of persons participate. The solution based on the value, however, is looking for a unique, fair compromise between all the competing interests, while the core delimits a "neutral territory" between uncompromising coalitions. Competitive balance, in turn, does not recognize any general conspiracy. But when the number of participants is large, it is, nevertheless, can be demonstrated under rather general conditions in which all three types of solutions come to an agreement, predicting the same result, but due to various reasons.

Suggested Citation

  • Shapley, Lloyd & Shubik, Martin, 2013. "Pure competition, the coalition force and the equitable sharing," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, pages 146-174, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:rnp:ecopol:ep1315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.ranepa.ru/rnp/ecopol/ep1315.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Feng, Qu & Horrace, William C., 2012. "Estimating technical efficiency in micro panels," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 730-733.
    2. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    3. Gerard Debreu, 1963. "On a Theorem of Scarf," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 30(3), pages 177-180.
    4. Hugo Nel, 2004. "Monetary Policy Transparency In South Africa: A Reply To Rossouw," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 72(5), pages 1105-1107, December.
    5. L. S. Shapley & Martin Shubik, 1967. "Ownership and the Production Function," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 81(1), pages 88-111.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kenneth Arrow, 1970. "Political and Economic Evaluation of Social Effects and Externalities," NBER Chapters, in: The Analysis of Public Output, pages 1-30, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. van Damme, E.E.C., 1995. "Game theory : The next stage," Other publications TiSEM 7779b0f9-bef5-45c7-ae6b-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Roberto Serrano, 2007. "Cooperative Games: Core and Shapley Value," Working Papers wp2007_0709, CEMFI.
    4. Nieva, Ricardo, 2015. "The Coalitional Nash Bargaining Solution with Simultaneous Payoff Demands," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 206838, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Shuige Liu, 2018. "Knowledge and Unanimous Acceptance of Core Payoffs: An Epistemic Foundation for Cooperative Game Theory," Papers 1802.04595, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2019.
    6. Peter Borm & Herbert Hamers & Ruud Hendrickx, 2001. "Operations research games: A survey," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 9(2), pages 139-199, December.
    7. Benoît Lengaigne, 2004. "Nash : changement de programme ?," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 114(5), pages 637-662.
    8. Trockel, Walter, 2011. "Core-equivalence for the Nash bargaining solution," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 355, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    9. Roger A McCain, 2013. "Value Solutions in Cooperative Games," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 8528.
    10. Brangewitz, Sonja & Gamp, Jan-Philip, 2016. "Inner Core, Asymmetric Nash Bargaining Solutions and Competitive Payoffs," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 453, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    11. Güth, Werner & Kliemt, Hartmut, 2001. "Langzeiteffekte der Theory of Games and Economic Behavior: Zur Anwendung der Spieltheorie in den (Sozial-)wissenschaften," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2001,8, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    12. Button, Kenneth, 2003. "Does the theory of the ‘core’ explain why airlines fail to cover their long-run costs of capital?," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 5-14.
    13. Button, Kenneth, 2005. "How Stable are Scheduled Air Transport Markets," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 27-48, January.
    14. van der Laan, Gerard & Withagen, Cees, 2003. "Quasi-equilibrium in economies with infinite dimensional commodity spaces: a truncation approach," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 423-444, January.
    15. Martin Shubik, 1984. "The Cooperative Form, the Value and the Allocation of Joint Costs and Benefits," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 706, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    16. Parkash Chandler & Henry Tulkens & Jean-Pascal Ypersele & Stephane Willems, 2006. "The Kyoto Protocol: An Economic and Game Theoretic Interpretation," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 195-215, Springer.
    17. Lester G. Telser, 1994. "The Usefulness of Core Theory in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 151-164, Spring.
    18. Federico Di Pace & Matthias Hertweck, 2019. "Labor Market Frictions, Monetary Policy, and Durable Goods," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 32, pages 274-304, April.
    19. Wei He & Nicholas C. Yannelis, 2013. "A New Perspective on Rational Expectations," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1317, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    20. Konovalov, A., 1998. "Core Equivalence in Economies With Satiation," Other publications TiSEM bde29dd4-b328-48b4-8fb4-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    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:rnp:ecopol:ep1315. 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: RANEPA maintainer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aneeeru.html .

    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.