Advertisement

International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 295–310 | Cite as

Scarcity, competition, and value

  • André Casajus
  • Harald Wiese
Original Paper
  • 319 Downloads

Abstract

We suggest a value for finite coalitional games with transferable utility that are enriched by non-negative weights for the players. In contrast to other weighted values, players stand for types of agents and weights are intended to represent the population sizes of these types. Therefore, weights do not only affect individual payoffs but also the joint payoff. Two principles guide the behavior of this value. Scarcity: the generation of worth is restricted by the scarcest type. Competition: only scarce types are rewarded. We find that the types’ payoffs for this value coincide with the payoffs assigned by the Mertens value to their type populations in an associated infinite game.

Keywords

TU game Shapley value Lovász extension Strong monotonicity Partnership Vector measure game Mertens value 

Mathematics Subject Classification

91A12 91A13 91B15 

JEL Classification

C71  D60 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Frank Huettner, Michael Kramm, and Philippe Solal as well as two anonymous rerefees for valuable comments on this paper. Financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for André Casajus (Grant CA 266/4-1) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Algaba E, Bilbao JM, Fernandez JR, Jimenez A (2004) The Lovsz extension of market games. Theory Decis 56:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aumann R, Shapley LS (1974) Values of non-atomic games. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Graham RL, Knuth DE, Patashnik O (1994) Concrete mathematics: a foundation for computer science, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Haimanko O (2001) Cost sharing: the non-differentiable case. J Math Econ 35:445–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kalai E, Samet D (1987) On weighted Shapley values. Int J Game Theory 16(3):205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lovsz L (1983) Submodular functions and convexity. In: Bachem A, Gröstschel M, Korte B (eds) Mathematical programming: the state of the art. Springer, Berlin, pp 235–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mertens J-F (1988) The Shapley value in the non-differentiable case. Int J Game Theory 17:1–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Neyman A (2002) Values of games with infinitely many players. In: Aumann R, Hart S (eds) Handbook of game theory with economic applications. Vol. 3 of Handbooks in Economics 11. North Holland, Chapter 56, pp 2121–2167Google Scholar
  9. Nowak AS, Radzik T (1995) On axiomatizations of the weighted Shapley values. Games Econ Behav 8:389–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Owen G (1972) Multilinear extensions of games. Manag Sci 18(5, Part 2):64–79Google Scholar
  11. Shapley LS (1953) A value for \(n\)-person games. In: Kuhn H, Tucker A (eds) Contributions to the theory of games, vol II. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 307–317Google Scholar
  12. Young HP (1985) Monotonic solutions of cooperative games. Int J Game Theory 14:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HHL Leipzig Graduate School of ManagementLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Theoretische Volkswirtschaftslehre, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche FakultätUniversität LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations