International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 17–31 | Cite as

Values for two-stage games: Another view of the Shapley axioms

  • A. Beja
  • I. Gilboa
Article

Abstract

This short study reports an application of the Shapley value axioms to a new concept of “two-stage games.” In these games, the formation of a coalition in the first stage entitles its members to play a prespecified cooperative game at the second stage. The original Shapley axioms have natural equivalents in the new framework, and we show the existence of (non-unique) values and semivalues for two stage games, analogous to those defined by the corresponding axioms for the conventional (one-stage) games. However, we also prove that all semivalues (hence, perforce, all values) must give patently unacceptable solutions for some “two-stage majority games” (where the members of a majority coalition play a conventional majority game). Our reservations about these prescribed values are related to Roth's (1980) criticism of Shapley's “λ-transfer value” for non-transferable utility (NTU) games. But our analysis has wider scope than Roth's example, and the argument that it offers appears to be more conclusive. The study also indicates how the values and semivalues for two-stage games can be naturally generalized to apply for “multi-stage games.”

Keywords

Shapley Values Shapley Axioms Majority Games Two-Stage Games 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aumann RJ (1975) Values of Markets with a Continuum of Traders, Econometrica, 43, 611–646Google Scholar
  2. Aumann RJ (1985a) An Axiomatization of the Non-transferable Utility Value, Econometrica, 53, 599–612Google Scholar
  3. Aumann RJ (1985b) On the Non-transferable Utility Value: A Comment on the Roth-Safer Examples, Econometrica, 53, 667–677Google Scholar
  4. Aumann RJ (1986) Rejoinder, Econometrica, 54, 985–989Google Scholar
  5. Dubey P, Neyman A, and Weber R (1981) Value Theory Without Efficiency, Mathematics of Operations Research, 6, 122–128Google Scholar
  6. Ford LR Jr., Fulkerson DR (1962) Flows in Networks, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J.Google Scholar
  7. Harsanyi JC (1980) Comments on Roth's Paper ‘Values for Games Without Side Payments’, Econometrica, 48, 477Google Scholar
  8. Hart S (1985a) An Axiomatization of Harsanyi's Non-transferable Utility Solution, Econometrica, 53, 1295–1313Google Scholar
  9. Hart S (1985b) Non-transferable Utility Games and Markets: Some Examples and the Harsanyi Solution, Econometrica, 53, 1445–1450Google Scholar
  10. Roth AE (1980) Values for Games Without Side Payments: Some Difficulties with Current Concepts, Econometrica, 48, 457–465Google Scholar
  11. Roth AE (1986) On the Non-transferable Utility Value: A Reply to Aumann, Econometrica, 54, 961–984Google Scholar
  12. Shafer WJ (1980) On the Existence and Interpretation of Value Allocations, Econometrica, 48, 467–476Google Scholar
  13. Shapley LS (1953) A Value forn-Person Games, in Contributions to the Theory of Games II, ed. by Kuhn HW and Tucker AW, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 307–317Google Scholar
  14. Shapley LS (1969) Utility Comparisons and the Theory of Games, in La Decision: Aggregation et Dynamique des Ordres de Preference, Paris, Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 251–263Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Beja
    • 1
    • 2
  • I. Gilboa
    • 3
  1. 1.Tel Aviv UniversityIsrael
  2. 2.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyUSA
  3. 3.Department of Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences, J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations