Skip to main content
Log in

Measuring influence in command games

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Social Choice and Welfare Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the paper, we study a relation between command games proposed by Hu and Shapley and an influence model. We show that our framework of influence is more general than the framework of the command games. We define several influence functions which capture the command structure. These functions are compatible with the command games, in the sense that each commandable player for a coalition in the command game is a follower of the coalition under the command influence function. Some of the presented influence functions are equivalent to the command games, that is, they are compatible with the command games, and additionally each follower of a coalition under the command influence function is also a commandable player for that coalition in the command games. For some influence functions we define the equivalent command games. We show that not for all influence functions the compatible command games exist. Moreover, we propose a more general definition of the influence index and show that under some assumptions, some power indices, which can be used in the command games, coincide with some expressions of the weighted influence indices. Both the Shapley–Shubik index and the Banzhaf index are equal to a difference between the weighted influence indices under some influence functions, and the only difference between these two power indices lies in the weights for the influence indices. An example of the Confucian model of society is broadly examined.

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

  • Albizuri MJ, Aurrekoetxea J (2006) Coalition configurations and the Banzhaf index. Soc Choice Welf 26: 571–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1986) Individual interests and collective action: selected essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan J, Packel EW (1978) A new index of power for simple n-person games. Int J Game Theory 7: 113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubey P, Shapley LS (1979) Mathematical properties of the Banzhaf power index. Math Oper Res 4: 99–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal D, Machover M (1998) The measurement of voting power: theory and practice, problems and paradoxes. Edward Elgar, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabisch M, Roubens M (1999) An axiomatic approach to the concept of interaction among players in cooperative games. Int J Game Theory 28: 547–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabisch M, Rusinowska A (2008a) Measuring influence among players with an ordered set of possible actions. GATE Working Paper, 2008-01, GATE, Ecully, France

  • Grabisch M, Rusinowska A (2008b) A model of influence in a social network. Theory Decis (forthcoming)

  • Hoede C, Bakker R (1982) A theory of decisional power. J Math Sociol 8: 309–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler MJ, Packel EW (1983) Power, luck and the right index. J Econ 43: 21–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu X, Shapley LS (2003a) On authority distributions in organizations: controls. Games Econ Behav 45: 153–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu X, Shapley LS (2003b) On authority distributions in organizations: equilibrium. Games Econ Behav 45: 132–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RJ (1978) On the measurement of power: some reactions to Laver. Environ Plan A 10: 907–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • König T, Bräuninger T (1998) The inclusiveness of European decision rules. J Theor Polit 10: 125–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindner I (2008) The power of a collectivity to act in weighted voting games with many small voters. Social Choice Welfare 30: 581–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen G (1977) Values of games with a priori unions. In: Hein R, Moeschlin O (eds) Essays in mathematical economics and game theory. Springer, New York, pp 77–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen G (1981) Modification of the Banzhaf–Coleman index for games with a priori unions. In: Holler MJ (eds) Power, voting, and voting power. Physica Verlag, Würzburg, pp 232–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose LS (1946) The elementary statistics of majority voting. J R Stat Soc 109: 53–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rae D (1969) Decision-rules and individual values in constitutional choice. Am Polit Sci Rev 63: 40–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapley LS (1994) A Boolean model of organization authority based on the theory of simple games. Mimeo

  • Shapley LS, Shubik M (1954) A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. Am Polit Sci Rev 48: 787–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agnieszka Rusinowska.

Additional information

The authors wish to gratefully thank two anonymous referees for useful suggestions concerning this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grabisch, M., Rusinowska, A. Measuring influence in command games. Soc Choice Welf 33, 177–209 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-008-0350-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-008-0350-8

Keywords

Navigation