Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 543–569 | Cite as

The Hoede–Bakker Index Modified to the Shapley–Shubik and Holler–Packel Indices

  • Agnieszka RusinowskaEmail author
Article

Abstract

We present some modifications of the Hoede–Bakker index defined in a social network in which players may influence each other. Due to influences of the other actors, the final decision of a player may be different from his original inclination. The modifications presented in the paper are defined for an arbitrary probability distribution over all inclination vectors. In particular, they concern the situation in which the inclination vectors may be not equally probable. Furthermore, by assuming special probability distributions over all inclination vectors, we construct modifications of the Hoede–Bakker index that coincide with the Shapley–Shubik index and with the Holler–Packel index, respectively. We present a practical example in which the concepts in question are applied to Dutch parties, and a theoretical example in which we show how the modifications can be calculated.

Keywords

Hoede–Bakker index Inclination vector Probability distribution Shapley–Shubik index Holler–Packel index 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banzhaf J (1965) Weighted voting doesn’t work: a mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Rev 19: 317–343Google Scholar
  2. Braham M, Holler MJ (2005) The impossibility of a preference-based power index. J Theor Polit 17: 137–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coleman JS (1971) Control of collectivities and the power of a collectivity to act. In: Lieberman (eds) Social choice. Gordon and Breach, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Coleman JS (1986) Individual interests and collective action: selected essays. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Einy E (1985) On connected coalitions in dominated simple games. Int J Game Theory 14: 103–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garrett G, Tsebelis G (1996) An institutional critique of intergovernmentalism. Int Organ 50: 269–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garrett G, Tsebelis G (1999) Why resist the temptation of power indices in the European Union?. J Theor Polit 11: 291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garrett G, Tsebelis G (1999) More reasons to resist the temptation of power indices in the European Union. J Theor Polit 11: 331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garrett G, Tsebelis G (2001) Even more reasons to resist the temptation of power indices in the European Union. J Theor Polit 13: 99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoede C, Bakker R (1982) A theory of decisional power. J Math Soc 8: 309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holler MJ (1982) Forming coalitions and measuring voting power. Polit Stud 30: 262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holler MJ, Packel EW (1983) Power, luck and the right index. J Econ 43: 21–29Google Scholar
  13. Hosli M (1997) Voting strength in the European Parliament: the influence of national and partisan actors. Eur J Polit Res 31: 351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hosli M (2002) Preferences and power in the European Union. Homo Oecon 19: 311–326Google Scholar
  15. König T, Bräuninger T (1998) The inclusiveness of European decision rules. J Theor Polit 10: 125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laruelle A, Valenciano F (2005) Assessing success and decisiveness in voting situations. Soc Choice Welfare 24: 171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morgan MJ (1976) The modelling of governmental coalition formation: a policy-based approach with interval measurement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Napel S, Widgrén M (2001) Inferior players in simple games. Int J Game Theory 30: 209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Napel S, Widgrén M (2002) The power of a spatially inferior player. Homo Oecon 19: 327–343Google Scholar
  20. Napel S, Widgrén M (2004) Power measurement as sensitivity analysis—a unified approach. J Theor Polit 16: 517–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Napel S, Widgrén M (2005) The possibility of a preference-based power index. J Theor Polit 17: 377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peleg B (1981) Coalition formation in simple games with dominant players. Int J Game Theory 10: 11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rae D (1969) Decision rules and individual values in constitutional choice. Am Polit Sci Rev 63: 40–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rusinowska A (2008) On the not-preference-based Hoede–Bakker index, forthcoming. In: Petrosjan, Mazalov (eds) Game theory and applications, Vol XIII. Nova Science Publishers Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Rusinowska A, De Swart H (2006) Generalizing and modifying the Hoede–Bakker index. In: De Swart H et al (eds) Theory and applications of relational structures as knowledge instruments, No 2. Springer’s Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence LNAI 4342. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp 60–88Google Scholar
  26. Rusinowska A, De Swart H (2007) On some properties of the Hoede–Bakker index. J Math Sociol 31(4): 267–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shapley LS, Shubik M (1954) A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. Am Polit Sci Rev 48: 787–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steunenberg B, Schmidtchen D, Koboldt C (1999) Strategic power in the European Union: evaluating the distribution of power in policy games. J Theor Polit 11: 339–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tsebelis G, Garrett G (1996) Agenda setting power indices, and decision making in the European Union. Int Rev Law Econ 16: 345–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Deemen A (1989) Dominant players and minimum size coalitions. Eur J Polit Res 17: 313–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Deemen A (1991) Coalition formation in centralized policy games. J Theor Polit 3: 139–6161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Deemen A (1997) Coalition formation and social choice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Roozendaal P (1993) Cabinets in the Netherlands: the importance of ‘dominant’ and ‘central’ parties. Eur J Polit Res 23: 35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GATE, CNRS, Université Lumière Lyon 2Ecully CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations