Forming and Dissolving Partnerships in Cooperative Game Situations
A group of players in a cooperative game are partners (e.g., as in the form of a union or a joint ownership) if the prospects for cooperation are restricted such that cooperation with players outside the partnership requires the accept of all the partners. The formation of such partnerships through binding agreements may change the game implying that players could have incentives to manipulate a game by forming or dissolving partnerships. The present paper seeks to explore the existence of allocation rules that are immune to this type of manipulation. An allocation rule that distributes the worth of the grand coalition among players, is called partnership formation-proof if it ensures that it is never jointly profitable for any group of players to form a partnership and partnership dissolution-proof if no group can ever profit from dissolving a partnership. The paper provides results on the existence of such allocation rules for general classes of games as well as more specific results concerning well known allocation rules.
|Date of creation:||Jun 2009|
|Date of revision:||Sep 2010|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building 26, DK-1353 Copenhagen K., Denmark|
Phone: (+45) 35 32 30 10
Fax: +45 35 32 30 00
Web page: http://www.econ.ku.dk
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Francesc Carreras & M. Llongueras & Antonio Magaña, 2005. "On the Convenience to Form Coalitions or Partnerships in Simple Games," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 67-89, July.
- Charnes, A. & Littlechild, S. C., 1975. "On the formation of unions in n-person games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 386-402, June.
- Legros, Patrick, 1987.
"Disadvantageous syndicates and stable cartels: The case of the nucleolus,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 30-49, June.
- Patrick Legros, 1987. "Disadvantageous syndicates and stable cartels: the case of the nucleolus," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/7046, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Ilya Segal, 2003. "Collusion, Exclusion, and Inclusion in Random-Order Bargaining," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(2), pages 439-460.
- Derks, J. & Tijs, S.H., 2000. "On merge properties of the Shapley value," Other publications TiSEM f9a2d218-87e0-4dc7-af3f-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- Haviv, Moshe, 1995. "Consecutive amalgamations and an axiomatization of the Shapley value," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 7-11, July.
- Shapley, Lloyd S & Shubik, Martin, 1969. "On the Core of an Economic System with Externalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(4), pages 678-84, Part I Se.
- Postlewaite, Andrew & Rosenthal, Robert W., 1974.
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 324-326, November.
- Curiel, I. & Pederzoli, G. & Tijs, S.H., 1989. "Sequencing games," Other publications TiSEM cd695be5-0f54-4548-a952-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- Carreras, Francesc & Llongueras, Maria Dolors & Puente, María Albina, 2009. "Partnership formation and binomial semivalues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(2), pages 487-499, January.
- Driessen, Theo S.H. & Meinhardt, Holger I., 2005. "Convexity of oligopoly games without transferable technologies," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 102-126, July.
- Haller, Hans, 1994. "Collusion Properties of Values," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 261-81.
- Lehrer, E, 1988. "An Axiomatization of the Banzhaf Value," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 89-99.
- Meinhardt, Holger, 1999. " Common Pool Games Are Convex Games," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 1(2), pages 247-70.
- Curiel, Imma & Pederzoli, Giorgio & Tijs, Stef, 1989. "Sequencing games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 344-351, June.
- Zhao, Jingang, 1999. "A necessary and sufficient condition for the convexity in oligopoly games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 189-204, March.
- Aumann, Robert J., 1973. "Disadvantageous monopolies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, February.
- Hart, Sergiu & Kurz, Mordecai, 1983. "Endogenous Formation of Coalitions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1047-64, July.
- Andrew Postlewaite, 1974. "Disadvantageous Syndicates in Exchange Economies," Discussion Papers 105, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Dutta, Bhaskar & Ray, Debraj, 1989. "A Concept of Egalitarianism under Participation Constraints," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 615-35, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kud:kuiedp:1024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Hoffmann)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.