Article thumbnail

Forming and Dissolving Partnerships in Cooperative Game Situations

By Trine Tornøe Platz and Lars Peter Østerdal

Abstract

A group of players in a cooperative game are partners (e.g., as in the form of a union or a joint ownership) if the prospects for cooperation are restricted such that cooperation with players outside the partnership requires the accept of all the partners. The formation of such partnerships through binding agreements may change the game implying that players could have incentives to manipulate a game by forming or dissolving partnerships. The present paper seeks to explore the existence of allocation rules that are immune to this type of manipulation. An allocation rule that distributes the worth of the grand coalition among players, is called partnership formation-proof if it ensures that it is never jointly profitable for any group of players to form a partnership and partnership dissolution-proof if no group can ever profit from dissolving a partnership. The paper provides results on the existence of such allocation rules for general classes of games as well as more specific results concerning well known allocation rules.cooperative games; partnerships; partnership formation-proof; partnership dissolution-proof

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1969). 15See, for example, Shapley and Shubik
  2. (1989). A concept of egalitarianism under participation constraints,
  3. (1999). A necessary and sufficient condition for the convexity in oligopoly games,
  4. (1953). A Value for n-person games,
  5. (1988). An Axiomatization of the Banzhaf value,
  6. (1975). C h a r n e s ,A .a n dS .L i t t l e c h i l d ,O nt h ef o r m a t i o no fu n i o n si nn-person games,
  7. (1994). Collusion Properties of Values,
  8. (2003). Collusion, Exclusion, and Inclusion in Random-Order Bargaining,
  9. (1999). Common pool games are convex,
  10. (1995). Consecutive amalgamations and an axiomatization of the Shapley value,
  11. (2005). Convexity of oligopoly games without transferable technologies,
  12. (1971). Cores of convex games,
  13. (1973). Disadvantageous monopolies,
  14. (1987). Disadvantageous syndicates and stable cartels: the case of the nucleolus,
  15. (1974). Disadvantageous syndicates,
  16. (2009). Efficiency and Collusion Neutrality of Solutions for Cooperative TU-Games, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 09-065/1,
  17. (1983). Endogenous formation of coalitions,
  18. (1995). Game Theory, Academic Press Orlando, Third Edition
  19. How to share the cost of a public good,
  20. (2003). Introduction to the theory of cooperative games,K l u w e r Academic Publishers,
  21. (1980). Lexicographically optimal base of a polymatroid with respect to a weight vector,
  22. (2008). Merging and Splitting in Cooperative games: Some (Im)possibility Results,
  23. (1990). On cost allocation in communication networks,
  24. (2005). On the Convenience to Form Coalitions or Partnerships in Simple Games,
  25. (1969). On the core of an economic system with externalities,
  26. (1996). On the Existence and Formation of Partnerships in a Game,
  27. (1987). On Weighted Shapley Values,
  28. (2009). Partnership formation and binomial semivalues,
  29. (1990). Property rights and the nature of the firm,
  30. (1989). Sequencing games,
  31. (1984). Stable Coalition Structures,
  32. (1971). The kernel and bargaining set for convex games,
  33. (2009). The nucleolus of a characteristic function game,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.