Efficient coalition formation and stable coalition structures in a supply chain environment

Popp, Alexandru W. A. (2009): Efficient coalition formation and stable coalition structures in a supply chain environment.

Abstract

We study a real supply chain environment from which specific information and knowledge can be extrapolated for other similar environments. We focus our research on the analysis of the interactions between members forming different teams (and between the teams themselves), and on the leader’s management of the supply chain. We note that there are many elements that contribute to the profitability of the network, which is dependent on the actions of the actors involved. We analyze certain characteristics that the actors have, such as their behavior, adaptation and learning levels, effort and willingness. Based on these components, we examine the performance of our actors and of the teams that the actors form. We provide specific calculations that take into account most of the components determining the added value to the system. One of the advantages of our main formula is that it can be used to monitor the progress of the actors, as well as it can help in the identification of problematic aspects impeding in the creation of value for the system. Our formula is very flexible and a modeler is able to adapt it to similar environments, providing him with great insight in the structures that he investigates. We study certain theoretical games from which we uncover certain information and characteristics of similar environments and settings. Moreover, we provide a real life example in order to truly understand the mechanism of the network, and validate our theoretical assessments. Moreover, we provide certain recommendations for a leader that is responsible for the supervision of actors (which have specific responsibilities) and the administration of a supply chain environment.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: coalition, supply chain management, core, value of the game, Coalition Factor Estimation
• Subjects: M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M1 - Business Administration > M12 - Personnel Management ; Executives; Executive Compensation; D - Microeconomics > D2 - Production and Organizations > D23 - Organizational Behavior ; Transaction Costs ; Property Rights; M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M1 - Business Administration > M11 - Production Management; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B40 - General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C71 - Cooperative Games; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C4 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics > C44 - Operations Research ; Statistical Decision Theory; D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D74 - Conflict ; Conflict Resolution ; Alliances ; Revolutions; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J2 - Demand and Supply of Labor > J21 - Labor Force and Employment, Size, and Structure; L - Industrial Organization > L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior > L23 - Organization of Production; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C72 - Noncooperative Games

References

Akerlof, G. A., Dickens, W., 1982. The economic consequence of cognitive dissonance. Amer. Econ. Rev. 72 (3), 307-319.

Allan, L. G., Jerkins, H.M., 1980. The judgment of contingency and the nature of the response alternatives. Can. J. Psych. 34, 1-11.

Alloy, L. B., Tabachnik, N., 1984. Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: the joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psych. Rev. 91, 112-149.

Andreoni, J., Harbaugh,W., Vesterlund, L., 2003. The carrot or stick: Reward, punishment and cooperation. Amer. Econ. Rev. 93 (3), 893-902.

Arkes, H. R., Harness, A. R., 1983. Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables. J. Exper. Psych. General 112, 117-135.

Aumann, R. J., 1961. The core of a cooperative game without side payments. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 98, 539-552.

Badcock, L., Loewenstein, G., 1997. Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. J. Econ. Perspect. 11 (1), 109-126.

Bewley, T., 1999. Why Wages Don’t Fall During a Recession. Harvard Univ. Press.

Blount, S., 1995. When social outcomes aren’t fair: The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organ. Behav. Human Dec. Proc. 63 (2), 131-144.

Bohnet, I., Cooter, B., 2005. Expressive law: framing or equilibrium selection? Working paper, UC Berkeley.

Brandts, J., Solà, C., 2001. Reference points and negative reciprocity in simple sequential games. Games and Economic Behavior 36, 397-409.

Cachon, G. P., Netessine, S. 2006. Game Theory in Supply Chain Analysis. Tutorials in Operations Research-Models, Methods, and Applications for Innovative Decision Making. Johnson, M. P., Norman, B., Secomandi N., eds. Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

Camerer, C., 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton Univ. Press.

Charness, G., 2004. Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. J. Lab. Econ. 22, 665-668.

Charness, G., Haruvy, E., 2002. Altruism, fairness, and reciprocity in a gift-exchange experiment: An encompassing approach. Games Econ. Behav. 40, 203-231.

Charness, G., Levine, D., 2004. The road to hell: An experimental study of intentions. Working paper.

Cooter, R., Ulen, T. 2003. Law and Economics. Addison-Wesley.

Cooter, R., 1998. Expressive law and economics. J. Legal Stud. 27, 585-608.

Davis, M., Maschler, M. 1965. The kernel of a cooperative game. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 12, 223-259.

Demange, G. 1994. Intermediate Preferences and Stable Coalition Structures. Journal of Mathematical Economics 23, 45-58.

Dickinson, D., 2001. The carrot vs. the stick in work team motivation. Exper. Econ. 4, 107-124.

Falk, A., Kosefeld, M., 2004. Distrust – The hidden cost of control. Discussion paper 1203. IZA.

Falk, A., Gächter, S., Kovács, J., 1999. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives in a repeated game with incomplete contracts. J. Econ. Psych. 20 (3), 251-284.

Falk, A., Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., 2008. Testing theories of fairness: Intentions matter. Games Econ. Behav. 62 (1), 287-303.

Falk, A., Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., 2003. On the nature of fair behavior. Econ. Inquiry 41 (1), 20-26.

Fehr, E., Falk, A., 2002. Psychological foundations of incentives. Europ. Econ. Rev. 46, 687-724.

Fehr, E., Gächter, S., 2000a. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Amer. Econ. Rev. 90 (4), 980-994.

Fehr, E., Gächter, S., 2000b. Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity. J. Econ. Perspect. 14 (3), 159-181.

Fehr, E., Klein, A., Schmidt, K., 2007. Fairness and contact desigh. Econometrica 75, 121-154.

Fehr, E., List, J., 2004. The hidden costs and rewards of incentives. J. Europ. Econ. Assoc. 2 (5), 743-771.

Fehr, E., Rockenbach, B., 2003. Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism. Nature 422, 137-140.

Fehr, E., Schmidt, K. M., 2007. Adding a stick to the carrot? The interaction of bonuses and fines. Amer. Econ. Rev. Papers and Proceedings 97, 177-181.

Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G., Riedl, A., 1993. Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. Quart. J. Econ. 108, 437-460.

Festinger, L., 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford Univ. Press.

Galbiati, R., Vertova, P., 2008. Obligations and cooperative behavior in public good games. Games and Economic Behavior 64, 146-170.

Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A., 2000a. A fine is a price. J. Legal Stud. 29 (1), 1-17.

Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A., 2000b. Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Quart. J. Econ. 115 (2), 791-810.

Gordon, M., Bowlby, R., 1989. Reactance and intentionality attribution as determinants of the intent to file a grievance. Personal Psych. 42, 309-329.

Greenberg J., Weber, S. 1986. Strong Tiebout Equilibrium under Restricted Preference Domain. Journal of Economic Theory 38, 101-117.

Greenberg J., Weber, S. 1993. Stable Coalition Structures with Unidimensional Set of Alternatives. Journal of Economic Theory 60, 62-82.

Greenberg, M., Frisch, D., 1972. Effect of intentionality on willingness to return a favor. J. Exper. Soc. Psych. 8, 99-111.

Guesnerie, R., Oddou, C. 1981. Second Best Taxation as a Game. Journal of Economic Theory 25, 67-91.

Houser, D., Xiao, E., McCabe, K., Smith, V., 2008. When punishment fails: Research on sanctions, intentions and non-cooperation. Games and Economic Behavior 62, 509-532.

Kahan, D. M., 1997. Social influence, social meaning and deterrence. Virginia Law Rev. 3, 349-395.

Kahan, D. M., 2002. The logic of reciprocity: Trust, collective action, and the law. Mimeo. Working paper Series NO. 281, Yale Law School.

Kamien, M. I., Schwartz, N.L., 2000. Dynamic Optimization: the calculus of variations and optimal control in economics and management. North-Holland.

Konow, J., 2000. Fair share: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Amer. Econ. Rev. 90 (4), 1072-1091.

Majunder, P., Groenevelt, H., 2001. Procurement competition in remanufacturing. Working paper, Duke University School of Business.

McAdams, R., Nadler, J., 2005. Testing the focal point theory of legal compliance: The effect of a third-party expression in an experimental hawk/dove game. J. Empirical Legal Stud. 2, 87-123.

McCabe, K., Rigdon, M., Smith, V., 2003. Positive reciprocity and intention in trust games. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 52 (2), 267-275.

Modi, J., Jung, H., Tambe, M., Shen, W., Kulkarni, S. Dynamic Distributed Resource Allocation: A Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Approach. Intelligent Agents, VIII Proceedings of the International workshop on Agents, theories, architectures and languages (ATAL'01).

Nelson Jr., W. R., 2002. Equity and intention: It’s the thought that counts. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 48 (4), 423-430.

Ostrom, E., Walker, J., Gardner, R., 1992. Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 86, 404-417.

Offerman, T., 2002. Hurting hurts more than helping helps. Europ. Econ. Rev. 46, 1423-1437.

Owen, G., 1968. Game Theory. W. B. Saunders Company.

Polinsky, M., Shavell, S., 2000. The economic theory of public enforcement of law. J. Econ.Lit. 38, 45-76.

Popp, W. A., 2009. An understanding of influence on human behavior. APOC Services. Working paper.

Popp, W. A., 2006a. The Epistemic value of rationality. The 12th International Conference on Foundations and Applications of Utility, Risk and Decision Theory. Working paper.

Popp, W. A., 2006b. On Economy. Economics, Management and Financial Markets 1 (2), 54-79.

Popp, W. A., 2002. Systemic game theory: Werterian approach. Topics in Game Theory, The 3rd APET International Conference on Public Economics.

Rabin, M., 1994. Cognitive dissonance and social change. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 23 (2), 177-194.

Raz, J., 1980. The Concept of a Legal System. Oxford Univ. Press.

Robinson, P.H., Darley, J.M., 1997. The utility of desert. Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 91, 453-499.

Sefton, M., Shupp, R., Walker, J., 2007. The effects of rewards and sanctions in provision of public goods. Economic Inquiry 45 (4), 671-690.

Sonsino, D., Sirota, J., 2003. Strategic pattern recognition – Experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior 44, 390-411.

Tyler, T., 1990. Why People Obey Law. Yale Univ. Press.

Yamagishi, T., 1986. The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 51 (1), 110-116.

Yamagishi, T., 1988. Seriousness of social dilemmas and the provision of a sanctioning system. Soc. Psych. Quart. 51 (1), 32-42.