Skip to main content
Log in

Local monotonicity of power: Axiom or just a property?

  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses whether Local Monotonicity (LM) should be regarded as a property of the power distribution of a specific voting game under consideration, indicated by a power measure, or as a characteristic of power per se. The latter would require reasonable power measures to satisfy a corresponding LM axiom. The former suggests that measures which do not allow for a violation of LM fail to account for dimensions of power which can cause nonmonotonicity in voting weight. Only if a measure is able to indicate nonmonotonicity, it can help design voting games for which power turns out to be monotonic. The argument is discussed in the light of recent extensions of traditional power indices.

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

  • Allingham, M.G. (1975). Economic power and values of games, Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie (Journal of Economics) 35: 293–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso-Meijide, J.M. & C. Bowles (2003). Power indices restricted by a priori unions can be easily computed and are useful: A generating function-based application to the IMF. Discussion Paper.

  • Barry, B. (1980). Is it better to be powerful or lucky: Part I and Part II, Political Studies 28: 183–194, 338–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R.E., Berglöf, E., Giavazzi, F. & Widgrén, M. (2001). Nice try: Should the Treaty of Nice be ratified? Monitoring European Integration 11, London: Center for Economic Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braham, M. & Holler, M.J. (2003). The impossibility of a preference-based power index. Forthcoming in: Journal of Theoretical Politics.

  • Braham, M. & Steffen, F. (2002). Local monotonicity and Straffin’s partial homogeneity approach to the measurement of voting power. Institute of SocioEconomics. University of Hamburg, manuscript.

  • Brams, S.J. & Fishburn, P.C. (1995). When is size a liability? Bargaining power in minimal winning coalitions, Journal of Theoretical Politics 7: 301–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brueckner, M. (2001). Extended probabilistic characterization of power. In M.J. Holler and G. Owen (eds.), Power indices and coalition formation. Boston, Dordrecht and London: Kluwer.

  • Caplow, T. (1968). Two Against One: Coalitions in Triads. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, Jr., J. & Packel, E.W. (1978). A new index of power for simple n-Person games, International Journal of Game Theory 7: 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubey, P. & Shapley, L. (1979). Mathematical properties of the Banzhaf power index, Mathematics of Operations Research 4: 99–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal, D. & Machover, M. (1995). Postulates and paradoxes of relative voting power - A critical review, Theory and Decision 38: 195–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal, D. & Machover, M. (1998). The measurement of boting power. Theory and practice, problems and paradoxes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenthal, D.S. & Machover, M. (2001). The treaty of Nice and qualified majority voting, Social Choice and Welfare 18: 431–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, D. & Schotter, A. (1980). The Inevitability of the paradox of redistribution in the allocation of voting weights, Public Choice 33: 49–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freixas, J. & Gambarelli, G. (1997). Common internal properties among power indices, Control and Cybernetics 26: 591–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M.J. (ed.) (1982a). Power, voting, and voting power. Würzburg and Vienna: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M.J. (1982b). Forming coalitions and measuring voting power, Political Studies 30: 262–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M.J. (1997). Power monotonicity and expectations, Control and Cybernetics 26, 605–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M.J. (1998). Two stories, one power index, Journal of Theoretical Politics 10: 179–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M.J. & Packel, E.W. (1983). Power, luck and the right index, Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie (Journal of Economics) 43: 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M.J. & Widgrén, M. (1999). Why power indices for assessing EU decision making? Journal of Theoretical Politics 11: 291–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M.J., Ono, R. & and Steffen, F. (2001). Constrained monotonicity and the measurement of power, Theory and Decision 50: 385–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M.J. & Owen, G. (eds.) (2001). Power indices and coalition formation. Boston, Dordrecht and London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isbell, J.R. (1958). A class of simple games, Duke Mathematics Journal 25: 423–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laruelle, A. & Valenciano, F. (2002). Assessment of Voting Situations: The Probabilistic Foundations. Discussion Paper 26/2002, Departamento de Economía Aplicada IV, Basque Country University, Bilbao, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, D. (2002). Designing the voting system for the council of the European Union, Public Choice, forthcoming.

  • Myerson, R.B. (1999). Nash equilibrium and the history of economic theory, Journal of Economic Literature 37, 1067–1082.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napel, S. & Widgrén, M. (2001). Inferior players in simple games, International Journal of Game Theory 30: 209–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napel, S. & Widgrën, M. (2002). Strategic power revisited. CESifo Working Paper No. 736, Munich, 2002.

  • Napel, S. & Widgrén, M. (2004). Power measurement as sensitivity analysis - A unified approach. Forthcoming in: Journal of Theoretical Politics.

  • Nurmi, H. (2000). Game theoretical approaches to the EU institutions: An overview and evaluation, Homo Oeconomicus 16: 363–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, G. (1972). Multilinear extensions of games, Management Science 18: 64–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, G. (1977). Values of games with a priori unions, pp. 76–88 in R. Henn and O. Moeschlin (eds.), Essays in mathematical economics and game theory. Berlin and New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen G. (1982). Modification of the Banzhaf-Coleman index for games with a priori unions, in M.J. Holler (ed.), Power, voting, and voting power, Würzburg and Wien: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenlund, H., Lane, J.-E. & Bjurulf, B. (1985). Formal and real voting power, European Journal of Political Economy 1: 59–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straffin, Jr., P.D. (1977). Homogeneity, independence, and power indices, Public Choice 30: 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widgrén, M. (2001). On the probabilistic relationship between public good index and normalized Banzhaf index, pp. 127–142 in M.J. Holler and G. Owen (eds.), Power indices and coalition formation. Boston, Dordrecht and London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manfred J. Holler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holler, M.J., Napel, S. Local monotonicity of power: Axiom or just a property?. Qual Quant 38, 637–647 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-4755-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-4755-5

Key words

Navigation