Skip to main content
Log in

A critical analysis on the notion of power

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we discuss on several ways to extend power indices defined on simple games to the context of (j, 2)-games, i.e., games with 2 possible outputs and j possible input levels. The purpose of this paper is more conceptual than technical, and shows that different power indices can be obtained in (j, 2)-games depending on how the criticality of a player is measured. Some power indices for simple games, regarded as measures of power as payment, can be obtained from the selection of two items: (1) a probabilistic model, and (2) a collection of winning coalitions. The combination of two particular probabilistic models and three collections of winning coalitions lead to six well-known power indices for simple games. The Banzhaf and the Johnston power indices are among them. The main goal of the paper is to discuss the generalizations of these six power indices from (2, 2)-games to (j, 2)-games for \(j\ge 3\). The probabilistic model and the collection of winning coalitions are trivially extendable to (j, 2)-games. However, at least four possible ways of measuring the criticality of a player can be considered in this new context, and lead to different possible extensions of the six power indices to (j, 2)-games. We highlight two of them as being the most interesting under our point of view. The first one would be suitable for assessing sensitivity, because it measures the player’s ability to modify the output by a small change in his input level. The second one would be adequate to evaluate strength, because it measures the voter’s ability to modify the output by any change in his voting. The main conclusion is that different extensions of the considered power indices, as the Banzhaf and the Jonnston indices, are possible for \(j\ge 3\) and that they should be taken into account when working in a multiple input context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguiar, V. H., Pongou, R., & Tondji, J.-B. (2018). A non-parametric test of the axioms of the Shapley value with limited data. Games and Economic Behavior, 111, 41–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguiar, V. H., Pongou, R., Serrano, R., & Tondji, J.-B. (2019). An index of unfairness. In Handbook of the Shapley value, (pp. 31–47).

  • Algaba, E., Fragnelli, V., & Sánchez-Soriano, J. (2019). Handbook of the Shapley value. USA: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso-Meijide, J. M., & Freixas, J. (2010). A new power index based on minimal winning coalitions without any surplus. Decision Support Systems, 49(1), 70–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso-Meijide, J. M., Freixas, J., & Molinero, X. (2012). Computation of several indices by generating functions. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219(8), 3395–3402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amer, R., Carreras, F., & Magaña, A. (1998). Extension of values to games with multiple alternatives. Annals of Operations Research, 84, 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andjiga, N. G., & Courtin, S. (2015). Coalition configurations and share functions. Annals of Operations Research, 225(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banzhaf, J. F. (1965). Weighted voting doesn’t work: A mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Review, 19(2), 317–343.

  • Carreras, F., & Freixas, J. (1996). Complete simple games. Mathematical Social Sciences, 32(2), 139–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1971). Control of collectivities and the power of a collectivity to act. In B. Lieberman (Ed.), Social Choice (pp. 269–300). New York, USA: Gordon and Breach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, J., & Packel, E. W. (1978). A new index of power for simple \(n\)-person games. International Journal of Game Theory, 7, 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einy, E. (1985). The desirability relation of simple games. Mathematical Social Sciences, 10(2), 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einy, E., & Lehrer, E. (1989). Regular simple games. International Journal of Game Theory, 18, 195–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fragnelli, V., Ottone, S., & Sattanino, R. (2009). A new family of Power Indices for Voting Games. Homo Oeconomicus, 26, 381–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal, D. S., & Machover, M. (1997). Ternary voting games. International Journal of Game Theory, 26, 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freixas, J. (2005a). Banzhaf measures for games with several levels of approval in the input and output. Annals of Operations Research, 137, 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freixas, J. (2005b). The Shapley-Shubik index for games with several levels of approval in the input and output. Decision Support Systems, 39, 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freixas, J. (2012). Probabilistic power indices for voting rules with abstention. Mathematical Social Sciences, 64, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freixas, J. (2019). A value for j-cooperative games: some theoretical aspects and applications. In E. Algaba, V. Fragnelli, & J. Sánchez-Soriano (Eds.), Handbook of the Shapley value (pp. 281–311). CRC Press, Taylor & Francis.

  • Freixas, J. (2020). The Banzhaf value for cooperative and simple multichoice games. Group Decision and Negotiation, 29, 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freixas, J., & Kurz, S. (2016). The cost of getting local monotonicity. European Journal of Operational Research, 251, 600–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freixas, J., & Pons, M. (2021). An appropriate way to extend the Banzhaf index for multiple levels of approval. Group Decision and Negotiation, 30, 447–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freixas, J., & Zwicker, W. S. (2003). Weighted voting, abstention, and multiple levels of approval. Social Choice and Welfare, 21(3), 399–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freixas, J., Marciniak, D., & Pons, M. (2012). On the ordinal equivalence of the Johnston, Banzhaf and Shapley power indices. European Journal of Operational Research, 216(2), 367–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freixas, J., Tchantcho, B., & Tedjeugang, N. (2014). Achievable hierarchies in voting games with abstention. European Journal of Operational Research, 236(1), 254–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freixas, J., Tchantcho, B., & Tedjeugang, N. (2014). Voting games with abstention: Linking completeness and weightedness. Decision Support Systems, 57, 172–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M. J. (1982). Forming coalitions and measuring voting power. Political Studies, 30, 262–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, C. R., & Raghavan, T. E. S. (1992). Monotonicity and dummy free property for multi-choice cooperative games. International Journal of Game Theory, 21, 301–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, C. R., & Raghavan, T. E. S. (1993). Shapley value for multichoice cooperative games I. Games and Economic Behavior, 5, 240–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isbell, J. R. (1956). A class of majority games. The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, 7(2), 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isbell, J. R. (1958). A class of simple games. Duke Mathematics Journal, 25(3), 423–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. J. (1978). On the measurement of power: Some reactions to Laver. Environment and Planning A, 10(8), 907–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenfack, J. A. M., Tchantcho, B., & Tsague, B. P. (2019). On the ordinal equivalence of the Jonhston, Banzhaf and Shapley-Shubik power indices for voting games with abstention. International Journal of Game Theory, 48(2), 647–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurz, S., Moyouwou, I., & Touyem, H. (2021). Axiomatizations for the Shapley-Shubik power index for games with several levels of approval in the input and output. Social Choice and Welfare, 56, 569–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C. (2012). The influence relation for ternary voting games. Games and Economic Behavior, 75(2), 867–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, L. S. (1946). The elementary statistics of majority voting. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 109(1), 53–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pongou, R., Tchantcho, B., & Diffo Lambo, L. (2011). Political influence in multichoice institutions: Cyclicity, anonymity and transitivity. Theory and Decision, 70(2), 157–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pongou, R., Tchantcho, B., & Tedjeugang, N. (2014). Power theories for multi-choice organizations and political rules: Rank-order equivalence. Operations Research Prespectives, 1(1), 42–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pongou, R., Tchantcho, B., & Tedjeugang, N. (2017). Properties of ladder tournaments. European Journal of Operational Research, 263, 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pongou, R., & Tondji, J.-B. (2018). Valuing inputs under supply uncertainty: The Bayesian Shapley value. Games and Economic Behavior, 108, 206–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L. S., & Shubik, M. (1954). A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. American Political Science Review, 48(3), 787–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, J., & Shan, E. (2021). The Banzhaf value for generalized probabilistic communication situations. Annals of Operations Research, 301, 225–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straffin, P. D. (1977). Homogeneity, independence and power indices. Public Choice, 30, 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A. D. (1995). Mathematics and Politics. New York, USA: Springer Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A. D., & Zwicker, W. S. (1999). Simple games: desirability relations, trading, and pseudoweightings. New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tchantcho, B., Lambo, L. D., Pongou, R., & Engoulou, B. M. (2008). Voters’ power in voting games with abstention: Influence relation and ordinal equivalence of power theories. Games and Economic Behavior, 64(1), 335–350.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Josep Freixas wishes to express his gratitude to Professor Francesc Carreras. Without his generous contribution, at teaching, research and personal levels, my research activity would not have developed. Thank you for your excellent mastery and academic guidance. The authors are grateful to the Associate Editor and to the Referees for their comments that contributed significantly to improve the final version of this paper.

Funding

This research was partially supported by funds from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation grant PID2019- I04987GB-I00.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josep Freixas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval (in case of humans or animals were involved)

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Freixas, J., Pons, M. A critical analysis on the notion of power. Ann Oper Res 318, 911–933 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04208-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04208-8

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation