ABSTRACT
The theories presented in the previous three chapters have defined the solution of a game in terms of the ability of a PC or set of PCs to survive challenges in the form of threats by players or coalitions to disrupt the proposed outcome in favor of an alternative. In this chapter, attention is turned to theories that define the stability of PCs in terms of a balancing of the various alternative prospects that are available to players or coalitions. The recurring theme throughout the four main theoretical lines discussed below is that players or coalitions seek out their best alternative to a proposed PC, and these competing best alternatives dictate points of balance among players from which the PCs of the solution arise. The way in which the theories differ, and they differ widely from each other, is in how this balancing is defined. The four theories presented are the kernel, the nucleolus, equal share analysis, and equal excess theory.
