Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Voting Power Index Analysis× | Two-Level Game Analysis× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Political Science | Political Science |
| Famille | MCDM | MCDM |
| Année d'origine≠ | 1954 | 1988 |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Lloyd Shapley & Martin Shubik; John F. Banzhaf III | Robert D. Putnam |
| Type≠ | Cooperative game-theoretic measure of a priori voting power | Framework for analyzing international negotiation under domestic constraints |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Shapley, L. S., & Shubik, M. (1954). A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System. American Political Science Review, 48(3), 787-792. DOI ↗ | Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization, 42(3), 427-460. DOI ↗ |
| Alias | Voting Power Index, Shapley-Shubik Index, Banzhaf Power Index, A Priori Voting Power Analysis | Two-Level Games, Putnam Two-Level Game Framework, Win-Set Analysis, Double-Edged Diplomacy |
| Apparentées | 4 | 4 |
| Résumé≠ | Voting power index analysis measures the a priori capacity of each member of a weighted voting body to influence collective decisions, defined as the probability that the member is pivotal — that their vote turns a losing coalition into a winning one. The two canonical indices are the Shapley-Shubik index, introduced by Lloyd Shapley and Martin Shubik in 1954 as a specialization of the Shapley value to simple voting games, and the Banzhaf index, formalized by John Banzhaf in 1965. Both reveal that a player's share of power generally differs sharply from its share of votes. | Two-level game analysis is a framework introduced by Robert Putnam in 1988 for understanding how international negotiations are jointly shaped by bargaining between governments and the need to win domestic approval. A negotiator plays simultaneously at two tables: Level I, where states bargain over an agreement, and Level II, where that agreement must be ratified by domestic constituents. The key analytic device is the win-set — the set of Level I deals that could secure domestic ratification — and an agreement is possible only where the negotiating states' win-sets overlap. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|