Skip to main content

Shapley value

  • Chapter
Game Theory

Part of the book series: The New Palgrave Economics Collection ((NPHE))

  • 682 Accesses

Abstract

The value of an uncertain outcome (a ‘lottery’) is an a priori measure, in the participant’s utility scale, of what he expects to obtain (this is the subject of ‘utility theory’). The question is, how would one evaluate the prospects of a player in a multiperson interaction, that is, in a game?

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Aumann, R.J. 1975. Values of markets with a continuum of traders. Econometrica 43, 611–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aumann, R.J. 1978. Recent developments in the theory of the Shapley Value. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aumann, R.J. 1985. On the non-transferable utility value: a comment on the Roth-Shafer examples. Econometrica 53, 667–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aumann, R.J. and Drèze, J.H. 1974. Cooperative games with coalition structures. International Journal of Game Theory 3, 217–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aumann, R.J. and Hart, S., eds. 1992 [HGT1], 1994 [HGT2], 2002 [HGT3]. Handbook of Game Theory, with Economic Applications, vols 1–3. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aumann, R.J. and Kurz, M. 1977. Power and taxes. Econometrica 45, 1137–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aumann, R.J. and Shapley, L.S. 1974. Values of Non-atomic Games. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banzhaf, J.F. 1965. Weighted voting doesn’t work: a mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Review 19, 317–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billera, L.J., Heath, D.C. and Raanan, J. 1978. Internal telephone billing rates: a novel application of non-atomic game theory. Operations Research 26, 956–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubey, P., Neyman, A. and Weber, R.J. 1981. Value theory without efficiency. Mathematics of Operations Research 6, 122–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubey, P. and Shapley, L.S. 1979. Mathematical properties of the Banzhaf Power Index. Mathematics of Operations Research 4, 99–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gui, F. 1989. Bargaining foundations of Shapley value. Econometrica 57, 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gui, F. 1999. Efficiency and immediate agreement: a reply to Hart and Levy. Econometrica 67, 913–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, J.C. 1963. A simplified bargaining model for the «-person cooperative game. International Economic Review 4, 194–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. and Kurz, M. 1983. Endogenous formation of coalitions. Econometrica 51, 1047–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. and Levy, Z. 1999. Efficiency does not imply immediate agreement. Econometrica 67, 909–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. and Mas-Colell, A. 1996. Bargaining and value. Econometrica 64, 357–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlechild, S.C. and Owen, G. 1973. A simple expression for the Shapley value in a special case. Management Science 20, 370–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maschler, M. and Owen, G. 1992. The consistent Shapley value for games without side payments. In Rational Interaction: Essays in Honor of John Harsanyi, ed. R. Selten. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerson, R.B. 1977. Graphs and cooperation in games. Mathematics of Operations Research 2, 225–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J.F. 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18, 155–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, G. 1971. Political games. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 18, 345–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, G. 1977. Values of games with a priori unions. In Essays in Mathematical Economics and Game Theory, ed. R. Herrn and O. Moeschlin. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, L.S. 1946. The elementary statistics of majority voting. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 109, 53–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A.E. 1977. The Shapley value as a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility. Econometrica 45, 657–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L.S. 1953a. A value for «-person games. In Contributions to the Theory of Games, II, ed. H.W. Kuhn and A.W. Tucker. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L.S. 1953b. Additive and non-additive set functions. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L.S. 1964. Values of large games VII: a general exchange economy with money. Research Memorandum 4248-PR. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L.S. 1969. Utility comparison and the theory of games. In La Décision: agrégation et dynamique des ordres de préférence. Paris: Editions du CNRS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L.S. 1977. A comparison of power indices and a nonsymmetric generalization. Paper No. P-5872. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L.S. 1981. Measurement of power in political systems. Game Theory and its Applications, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, vol. 24. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L.S. and Shubik, M. 1954. A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. American Political Science Review 48, 787–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shubik, M. 1962. Incentives, decentralized control, the assignment of joint costs and internal pricing. Management Science 8, 325–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, E. 1994. The demand commitment bargaining and snowballing cooperation. Economic Theory 4, 255–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, H.P. 1985. Monotonie solutions of cooperative games. International Journal of Game Theory 14, 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2010 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Durlauf, S.N., Blume, L.E. (2010). Shapley value. In: Durlauf, S.N., Blume, L.E. (eds) Game Theory. The New Palgrave Economics Collection. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280847_33

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics