Does it make sense to analyse a two-sided market as a multi-choice game?
In this paper, we introduce the model of multi-choice two-sided market games related to two-sided market situations. Associated with them we study whether the disaggregate management of the individual units of goods provide better insights, by means of set valued solution concepts like the core that...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of operations research 2021-06, Vol.301 (1-2), p.17-40 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 40 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1-2 |
| container_start_page | 17 |
| container_title | Annals of operations research |
| container_volume | 301 |
| creator | Branzei, R. Gutiérrez, E. Llorca, N. Sánchez-Soriano, J. |
| description | In this paper, we introduce the model of multi-choice two-sided market games related to two-sided market situations. Associated with them we study whether the disaggregate management of the individual units of goods provide better insights, by means of set valued solution concepts like the core that is widely used in classical and multi-choice two-sided games. We introduce the Owen core and the pairwise egalitarian contribution set in this context and analyse whether classic and multi-choice two-sided market models are equivalents in terms of these set valued solution concepts from the point of view of aggregate payoffs. The answer to this analysis is that in aggregate terms there are no significant differences between the multi-choice approach and the standard approach. However, they are not equivalent from a disaggregate perspective. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10479-020-03576-x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2522237093</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A660897887</galeid><sourcerecordid>A660897887</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-720170241f0d9541595f786931976d41a9ead3ff37d9c31ca427e18dfbeb7f5c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kdFqFTEQhoNY8Nj6Al4teGvaSbLZbK6k1GoLBW_qdcjJTrZpz27qThbbtzf1iFoQCSRh-L4hk5-xtwKOBYA5IQGtsRwkcFDadPzhBdsIbSS3SvUv2QakbrlWCl6x10S3ACBErzfs4mNGalJpJn-HDeFM2JTc-NnvHuvVN-V75pQGHCqx3GFpPNXqtO5K4uEmp4DN6Cf8cMQOot8Rvvl1HrKvn86vzy741ZfPl2enVzy0UhVuJAgDshURBqtboa2Opu-sEtZ0Qyu8RT-oGJUZbFAi-FYaFP0Qt7g1UQd1yN7t-94v-duKVNxtXpf6XHJSSymVgTryb2r0O3RpjrksPkyJgjvtOuit6XtTqeN_UHUNOKWQZ4yp1p8J7_8StiulGalulMabQqNfiZ7jco-HJRMtGN39kuo3PjoB7ik3t8_N1dzcz9zcQ5XUXqIKzyMufwb8j_UD4cWX9A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2522237093</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does it make sense to analyse a two-sided market as a multi-choice game?</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Springer journals</source><creator>Branzei, R. ; Gutiérrez, E. ; Llorca, N. ; Sánchez-Soriano, J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Branzei, R. ; Gutiérrez, E. ; Llorca, N. ; Sánchez-Soriano, J.</creatorcontrib><description>In this paper, we introduce the model of multi-choice two-sided market games related to two-sided market situations. Associated with them we study whether the disaggregate management of the individual units of goods provide better insights, by means of set valued solution concepts like the core that is widely used in classical and multi-choice two-sided games. We introduce the Owen core and the pairwise egalitarian contribution set in this context and analyse whether classic and multi-choice two-sided market models are equivalents in terms of these set valued solution concepts from the point of view of aggregate payoffs. The answer to this analysis is that in aggregate terms there are no significant differences between the multi-choice approach and the standard approach. However, they are not equivalent from a disaggregate perspective.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0254-5330</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-9338</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10479-020-03576-x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Business and Management ; Combinatorics ; Equivalence ; Fees & charges ; Game theory ; Games ; Markets (Economics) ; Operations research ; Operations Research/Decision Theory ; S.i.: Sing 14 ; Theory of Computation</subject><ispartof>Annals of operations research, 2021-06, Vol.301 (1-2), p.17-40</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-720170241f0d9541595f786931976d41a9ead3ff37d9c31ca427e18dfbeb7f5c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-720170241f0d9541595f786931976d41a9ead3ff37d9c31ca427e18dfbeb7f5c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5991-1202 ; 0000-0002-0458-2971</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10479-020-03576-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-020-03576-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Branzei, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutiérrez, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Llorca, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sánchez-Soriano, J.</creatorcontrib><title>Does it make sense to analyse a two-sided market as a multi-choice game?</title><title>Annals of operations research</title><addtitle>Ann Oper Res</addtitle><description>In this paper, we introduce the model of multi-choice two-sided market games related to two-sided market situations. Associated with them we study whether the disaggregate management of the individual units of goods provide better insights, by means of set valued solution concepts like the core that is widely used in classical and multi-choice two-sided games. We introduce the Owen core and the pairwise egalitarian contribution set in this context and analyse whether classic and multi-choice two-sided market models are equivalents in terms of these set valued solution concepts from the point of view of aggregate payoffs. The answer to this analysis is that in aggregate terms there are no significant differences between the multi-choice approach and the standard approach. However, they are not equivalent from a disaggregate perspective.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Business and Management</subject><subject>Combinatorics</subject><subject>Equivalence</subject><subject>Fees & charges</subject><subject>Game theory</subject><subject>Games</subject><subject>Markets (Economics)</subject><subject>Operations research</subject><subject>Operations Research/Decision Theory</subject><subject>S.i.: Sing 14</subject><subject>Theory of Computation</subject><issn>0254-5330</issn><issn>1572-9338</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>N95</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kdFqFTEQhoNY8Nj6Al4teGvaSbLZbK6k1GoLBW_qdcjJTrZpz27qThbbtzf1iFoQCSRh-L4hk5-xtwKOBYA5IQGtsRwkcFDadPzhBdsIbSS3SvUv2QakbrlWCl6x10S3ACBErzfs4mNGalJpJn-HDeFM2JTc-NnvHuvVN-V75pQGHCqx3GFpPNXqtO5K4uEmp4DN6Cf8cMQOot8Rvvl1HrKvn86vzy741ZfPl2enVzy0UhVuJAgDshURBqtboa2Opu-sEtZ0Qyu8RT-oGJUZbFAi-FYaFP0Qt7g1UQd1yN7t-94v-duKVNxtXpf6XHJSSymVgTryb2r0O3RpjrksPkyJgjvtOuit6XtTqeN_UHUNOKWQZ4yp1p8J7_8StiulGalulMabQqNfiZ7jco-HJRMtGN39kuo3PjoB7ik3t8_N1dzcz9zcQ5XUXqIKzyMufwb8j_UD4cWX9A</recordid><startdate>20210601</startdate><enddate>20210601</enddate><creator>Branzei, R.</creator><creator>Gutiérrez, E.</creator><creator>Llorca, N.</creator><creator>Sánchez-Soriano, J.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>N95</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5991-1202</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0458-2971</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210601</creationdate><title>Does it make sense to analyse a two-sided market as a multi-choice game?</title><author>Branzei, R. ; Gutiérrez, E. ; Llorca, N. ; Sánchez-Soriano, J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-720170241f0d9541595f786931976d41a9ead3ff37d9c31ca427e18dfbeb7f5c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Business and Management</topic><topic>Combinatorics</topic><topic>Equivalence</topic><topic>Fees & charges</topic><topic>Game theory</topic><topic>Games</topic><topic>Markets (Economics)</topic><topic>Operations research</topic><topic>Operations Research/Decision Theory</topic><topic>S.i.: Sing 14</topic><topic>Theory of Computation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Branzei, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutiérrez, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Llorca, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sánchez-Soriano, J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Business Insights</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Annals of operations research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Branzei, R.</au><au>Gutiérrez, E.</au><au>Llorca, N.</au><au>Sánchez-Soriano, J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does it make sense to analyse a two-sided market as a multi-choice game?</atitle><jtitle>Annals of operations research</jtitle><stitle>Ann Oper Res</stitle><date>2021-06-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>301</volume><issue>1-2</issue><spage>17</spage><epage>40</epage><pages>17-40</pages><issn>0254-5330</issn><eissn>1572-9338</eissn><abstract>In this paper, we introduce the model of multi-choice two-sided market games related to two-sided market situations. Associated with them we study whether the disaggregate management of the individual units of goods provide better insights, by means of set valued solution concepts like the core that is widely used in classical and multi-choice two-sided games. We introduce the Owen core and the pairwise egalitarian contribution set in this context and analyse whether classic and multi-choice two-sided market models are equivalents in terms of these set valued solution concepts from the point of view of aggregate payoffs. The answer to this analysis is that in aggregate terms there are no significant differences between the multi-choice approach and the standard approach. However, they are not equivalent from a disaggregate perspective.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s10479-020-03576-x</doi><tpages>24</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5991-1202</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0458-2971</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0254-5330 |
| ispartof | Annals of operations research, 2021-06, Vol.301 (1-2), p.17-40 |
| issn | 0254-5330 1572-9338 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2522237093 |
| source | Business Source Complete; Springer journals |
| subjects | Analysis Business and Management Combinatorics Equivalence Fees & charges Game theory Games Markets (Economics) Operations research Operations Research/Decision Theory S.i.: Sing 14 Theory of Computation |
| title | Does it make sense to analyse a two-sided market as a multi-choice game? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T16%3A56%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20it%20make%20sense%20to%20analyse%20a%20two-sided%20market%20as%20a%20multi-choice%20game?&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20operations%20research&rft.au=Branzei,%20R.&rft.date=2021-06-01&rft.volume=301&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=17&rft.epage=40&rft.pages=17-40&rft.issn=0254-5330&rft.eissn=1572-9338&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10479-020-03576-x&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA660897887%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2522237093&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A660897887&rfr_iscdi=true |