IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v7y1995i3p301-316.html

When is Size a Liability?

Author

Listed:
  • Steven J. Brams
  • Peter C. Fishburn

Abstract

Riker's `size principle' predicts that only minimal winning coalitions (MWCs) will form in n -person zero-sum games that satisfy certain conditions. After summarizing the logic of this principle, a model is proposed in which n players can be ordered from most to least weighty. Two different kinds of MWCs are distinguished: • those in which every member is `critical' (member-MWCs); and • member-MWCs that have the smallest weight (weight-MWCs). A member is critical when its defection causes an MWC to become losing. A listing of the possible categories of member-MWCs indicates that their numbers rapidly increase with the number of players (2, 6, 20, and 116 for n = 3, 4, 5, and 6 players). Three quantitative measures of bargaining power show that less weighty players may, on occasion, be more powerful than more weighty players. Possible empirical manifestations of the inverse relationship between weight and bargaining power in parliamentary coalitions and international politics are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven J. Brams & Peter C. Fishburn, 1995. "When is Size a Liability?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(3), pages 301-316, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:7:y:1995:i:3:p:301-316
    DOI: 10.1177/0951692895007003004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692895007003004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951692895007003004?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fishburns, Peter C. & Brams, Steven J., 1994. "Minimal Winning Coalitions in Weighted-Majority Games," Working Papers 94-28, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    2. repec:cup:apsrev:v:62:y:1968:i:02:p:461-475_20 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:cup:apsrev:v:48:y:1954:i:03:p:787-792_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Michela Chessa, 2014. "A generating functions approach for computing the Public Good index efficiently," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 22(2), pages 658-673, July.
    2. Geir Asheim & Carl Claussen & Tore Nilssen, 2006. "Majority voting leads to unanimity," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 35(1), pages 91-110, December.
    3. Manfred Holler & Stefan Napel, 2005. "Local monotonicity of power: Axiom or just a property?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 637-647, January.
    4. Gideon Doron & Martin Sherman, 1995. "A Comprehensive Decision-Making Exposition of Coalition Politics," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(3), pages 317-333, July.
    5. Mika WidgrÚn, 2002. "On the Probablistic Relationship between the Public Good Index and the Normalized Bannzhaf Index," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 19, pages 373-386.
    6. Manfred J. Holler, 1998. "Two Stories, One Power Index," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(2), pages 179-190, April.
    7. Manfred Holler & Rie Ono & Frank Steffen, 2001. "Constrained Monotonicity and the Measurement of Power," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 383-395, June.
    8. Braham, Matthew & Steffen, Frank, 2002. "Voting rules in insolvency law: a simple-game theoretic approach," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 421-442, December.
    9. José María Alonso‐Meijide & Manfred J. Holler, 2009. "Freedom Of Choice And Weighted Monotonicity Of Power," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 571-583, November.

    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.

      More about this item

      Keywords

      ;
      ;
      ;
      ;

      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:sae:jothpo:v:7:y:1995:i:3:p:301-316. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

      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.