Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Game Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.”

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

  • Aumann RJ (1975) Values of Markets with a Continuum of Traders, Econometrica, 43, 611–646

    Google Scholar 

  • Aumann RJ (1985a) An Axiomatization of the Non-transferable Utility Value, Econometrica, 53, 599–612

    Google Scholar 

  • Aumann RJ (1985b) On the Non-transferable Utility Value: A Comment on the Roth-Safer Examples, Econometrica, 53, 667–677

    Google Scholar 

  • Aumann RJ (1986) Rejoinder, Econometrica, 54, 985–989

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubey P, Neyman A, and Weber R (1981) Value Theory Without Efficiency, Mathematics of Operations Research, 6, 122–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford LR Jr., Fulkerson DR (1962) Flows in Networks, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi JC (1980) Comments on Roth's Paper ‘Values for Games Without Side Payments’, Econometrica, 48, 477

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart S (1985a) An Axiomatization of Harsanyi's Non-transferable Utility Solution, Econometrica, 53, 1295–1313

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart S (1985b) Non-transferable Utility Games and Markets: Some Examples and the Harsanyi Solution, Econometrica, 53, 1445–1450

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth AE (1980) Values for Games Without Side Payments: Some Difficulties with Current Concepts, Econometrica, 48, 457–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth AE (1986) On the Non-transferable Utility Value: A Reply to Aumann, Econometrica, 54, 961–984

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer WJ (1980) On the Existence and Interpretation of Value Allocations, Econometrica, 48, 467–476

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 307–317

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 251–263

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Partial financial support from the Israel Institute of Business Research at Tel Aviv University is gratefully acknowledged.

Partial financial support from NSF grant no. IRI — 8814672 is gratefully acknowledged.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beja, A., Gilboa, I. Values for two-stage games: Another view of the Shapley axioms. Int J Game Theory 19, 17–31 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01753705

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01753705

Keywords

Navigation