Article contents
A Research Note on the Size of Winning Coalitions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Extract
This paper is concerned with the problem of relating aggregate coalition payoffs to the winnings of an individual player, so that some theoretical foundation might be developed for dealing with problems of coalition formation. Professor William H. Riker was concerned with this problem in his Theory of Political Coalitions; in that book he developed a formulation holding that in several common political situations players would strive to form only minimum winning coalitions. Riker based that formulation on his derivation in game theory of “the size principle,” which held that in zero-sum games among rational players with perfect information, only minimum winning coalitions would occur. The first part of this research note shows that there is a difficulty in Riker's derivation of the “size principle,” presents counter-examples to that principle, and shows that it is unsound in general. The second part of this note develops the maximum number of positive gainers principle, which shows that in the kind of games being examined there is a maximum upper limit to the number of players who will positively gain; but this does not insure that the winning coalition will be minimal.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1971
References
1 Luce, R. Duncan and Raiffa, Howard, Games and Decisions (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1957) p. 192 Google Scholar.
2 Riker, William H., The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), p. 32 Google Scholar.
3 Riker, op. cit., p. 262.
4 Riker, op. cit., p. 217.
5 Riker, op. cit., p. 270.
6 Riker, op. cit., p. 271.
7 Riker, op. cit., p. 40.
8 Riker, op. cit., pp. 214–215.
9 See the discussion of “certainly necessary” and “certainly unnecessary” winning coalitions in von Neumann, John and Morgenstem, Oskar, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967), pp. 272–4, 420–3Google Scholar.
- 22
- Cited by
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.