Skip to main content

Cost Allocation as Cooperative Games

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 989 Accesses

Abstract

There is a wide range of situations where a group of agents (broadly interpreted as persons, departments, organizations or countries) benefit from cooperative actions, but is left with the problem of sharing the related costs. These situations range from everyday life problems such as people sharing a cab to international agreements like the Kyoto protocol where industrialized countries bargain over emission cuts. In everyday situations, like sharing a cab, there are rarely time to make use of sophisticated allocation rules even though the problem itself may be rather complex: typically the allocation becomes more or less random and people often tend to use rules of thumb.In situations like bargaining between countries over emission cuts, the final outcome will typically reflect the countries bargaining power rather than sophisticated considerations of fairness

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arin J, Kuipers J, Vermeulen D (2003) Some characterizations of egalitarian solutions on classes of TU-games. Math Soc Sci 46:327–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aumann R, Maschler M (1985) Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud. J Econ Theory 36:195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjondal E, Hamers H, Koster M (2004) Cost allocation in a bank ATM network. Math Methods Oper Res 59:405–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondareva ON (1963) Certain applications of the method of linear programming to the theory of cooperative games. Problemy Kibernitiki 10:119–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Granot D (1973) Prior solutions: extensions of convex nucleolus solutions to chance-constrained games. In: Proceedings of the Computer Science and Statistics Seventh Symposium at Iowa State University, 323–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curiel I (1997) Cooperative game theory and applications. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curiel I, Maschler M, Tijs SH (1987) Bankruptcy games. Z Oper Res 31:A143–A159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta B (1990) The egalitarian solution and reduced game properties in convex games. Int J Game Theory 19:153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta B, Ray D (1989) A concept of egalitarianism under participation constraints. Econometrica 57:615–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart S, Mas-Colell A (1989) Potential, value, and consistency. Econometrica 57:589–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hokari T (2000) The nucleolus is not aggregate monotonic on the class of convex games. Int J Game Theory 29:133–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hougaard JL, Østerdal LP (2006) Monotonicity of social welfare optima. Games Econ Behav (to appear).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hougaard JL, Peleg B, Thorlund-Petersen L (2001) On the set of Lorenz-maximal imputations in the core of a balanced game. Int J Game Theory 30:147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hougaard JL, Peleg B, Østerdal LP (2005) The Dutta–Ray solution on the class of convex games: a generalization and monotonicity properties. Int Game Theory Review 7:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Housman D, Clark L (1998) Core and monotonic allocation methods. Int J Game Theory 27:611–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ichiishi T (1981) Super modularity: applications to convex games and the greedy algorithm. J Econ Theory 25:283–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer E (2002) Allocation processes in cooperative games. Int J Game Theory 31:341–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlechild SC, Thompson GF (1977) Aircraft landing fees: a game theory approach. Bell J Econ 8:186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirghani AN, Scapens RW (1995) Cost allocation theory and practice: the continuing debate. In: Ashton, Hopper, Scapens (eds) Issues in management accounting, chap. 3. Prentice-Hall, London, pp. 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen G (1995) Game theory, 3rd edn. Academic, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peleg B, Sudhölter P (2003) Introduction to the theory of cooperative games. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ransmeier JS (1942) The Tennessee Valley Authority: a case study in the economics of multiple purpose stream planning. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeidler D (1969) The Nucleolus of a characteristic function game. SIAM J Appl Math 17:1163–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapley L (1953) A value for n-person games. Ann Math Stud 28:307–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley L (1967) On balanced sets and cores. Naval Res Logist Q 14:453–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapley L (1971) Cores of convex games. Int J Game Theory 1:11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobolev AI (1975) The characterization of optimality principles in cooperative games by functional equations. In: Vorobiev NN (ed) Mathematical methods in social sciences, vol 6. Academy of Sciences of the Lithunian SSR, Vilnius, pp. 95–151 (in Russian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprumont Y (1990) Population monotonic allocation schemes for cooperative games with transferable utility. Games Econ Behav 2:378–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suijs J (2000) Cooperative decision-making under risk. Kluwer, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taha HA (1989) Operations research, 2nd edn. Maxwell Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijs SH (1981) Bounds for the core and the τ-value. In: Moeschlin O, Pallaschke D (eds) Game theory and mathematical economics. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 123–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijs SH (1987) An axiomatization of the τ-value. Math Soc Sci 13:177–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijs SH, Driessen TSH (1986) Game theory and cost allocation problems. Manage Sci 32:1015–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmer J, Borm P, Tijs S (2003) On three Shapley-like solutions for cooperative games with random payoffs. Int J Game Theory 32:595–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Nouweland A, Borm P, van den Golstein Brouwers W, Groot Bruinderink R, Tijs S (1996) A game theoretic approach to problems in telecommunication. Manage Sci 42:294–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • (1985) Monotonic solutions of cooperative games. Int J Game Theory 14: 65–72. Please update reference Hougaard and Østerdal (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Leth Hougaard .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hougaard, J.L. (2009). Cost Allocation as Cooperative Games. In: An Introduction to Allocation Rules. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01828-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01828-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-01827-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-01828-2

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics