Four axioms are placed on a correspondence from smooth, non-atomic economies to their allocations. We show that the axioms categorically determine the (coincident) competitive-core-value correspondence. Thus any solution is equivalent to the above three if, and only if, it satisfies the axioms. In this sense our result is tantamount to an "equivalence principle." At the same time, our result implies that the three solutions themselves are determined by the axioms and so serves as an axiomatic characterization of the well-known competitive (or core, or value) correspondence.
It has been remarked that in rational interactions more information to one player, while all others' information remains the same, may reduce his payoff in equilibrium. This classical observation relies on comparing equilibria of two different games. It is argued that this analysis is not tenably performed by comparing equilibria of two different games. Rather, one is compelled to perform the analysis in an interaction without complete information, and to compare equilibria of two interactions that are embedded in some compounded game. It is then shown that the player whose information is unilaterally refined cannot be worse off at equilibrium.
It is shown that the Shapley value of any given game v is characterized by applying the value axioms -- efficiency, symmetry, the null player axiom, and either additivity or strong positivity -- to the additive group generated by the subgames of v.