DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 16 Oligopoly and Game Theory Oligopoly Oligopoly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Chapter 16 “Game theory is the study of how people Oligopoly behave in strategic situations. By ‘strategic’ we mean a situation in which each person, when deciding what actions to take, must and consider how others might respond to that action.” Game Theory Oligopoly Oligopoly • “Oligopoly is a market structure in which only a few • “Figuring out the environment” when there are sellers offer similar or identical products.” rival firms in your market, means guessing (or • As we saw last time, oligopoly differs from the two ‘ideal’ inferring) what the rivals are doing and then cases, perfect competition and monopoly. choosing a “best response” • In the ‘ideal’ cases, the firm just has to figure out the environment (prices for the perfectly competitive firm, • This means that firms in oligopoly markets are demand curve for the monopolist) and select output to playing a ‘game’ against each other. maximize profits • To understand how they might act, we need to • An oligopolist, on the other hand, also has to figure out the understand how players play games. environment before computing the best output. • This is the role of Game Theory. Some Concepts We Will Use Strategies • Strategies • Strategies are the choices that a player is allowed • Payoffs to make. • Sequential Games •Examples: • Simultaneous Games – In game trees (sequential games), the players choose paths or branches from roots or nodes. • Best Responses – In matrix games players choose rows or columns • Equilibrium – In market games, players choose prices, or quantities, • Dominated strategies or R and D levels. • Dominant Strategies. – In Blackjack, players choose whether to stay or draw. Sequential Games A Sequential Game A • A sequential game is a game that is played A in strict order. B • One person makes a move, then another B A sees the move and then she moves. A •Examples: A – Chess and checkers, A –Nim B – Entry games by firms. A Simultaneous Games A Matrix Game • Simultaneous games occur when players have to \Player Left Right make their strategy choices without seeing what Player \ Two their rivals have done. • Note: These do not literally have to be One \ simultaneous. Up •Examples: – Rock, paper scissors, Snap – Pricing games by rivalrous firms Down – R and D games by firms Payoffs Payoffs • Payoffs describe what a player gets when she • More often, though, payoffs can vary a lot. plays the game. • To fully describe a game, we need to • In some cases, we do not have to be very precise. explain the consequences of every move by • For example, some games are “zero-sum”, when every player. one person wins, another loses. •Examples: • Then it doesn’t really matter what number we assign. – Profits for firms • A winner could get 1 and a loser, -1. Or a winner – Prizes (first, second third) in competitions could get, say, 15 and the loser -15. – Inventions in R and D games. A Sequential Game with Payoffs Sequential Game ice h Pr Hig (5,24) • In the above game, the first number refers to L r ow P the (dollar) payoff for the first mover, the nte rice E (-10, 20) second is the payoff for the second mover. rice B h P Hig (0, 27) No t E L (0, 23) nt ow P er A rice Consider a Pricing Game Between Two Firms B • Firms price simultaneously. LOW(P = 1) HIGH(P = 2) • They may price High or Low LOW( P = 1) 4, 4 6, 3 • Both Pricing High yields the highest profits. • But each wants to cheat. A HIGH(P = 2) 3, 6 5, 5 Simultaneous Game Payoffs Equilibrium • In the above game, the first number refers to • Once we have described strategies and the Row player’s payoffs (the number of payoffs, we can go ahead and try to predict years in prison) how a player will play a game. • The second number refers to the Column • But where do we start? player’s payoffs (the number of years in • “Equilibrium” is the term game theorists use prison). to describe how the game will (likely?) be played. Equilibrium • We will focus on two types of equilibrium: “A dominated strategy is any strategy such • Elimination of Dominated Strategies that there is some other strategy that always • Nash Equilibrium does better for a player in a game regardless of the strategies chosen by other players.” Elimination of Dominated Strategies B • If Strategy A always gives a player a lower payoff LOW(P = 1) HIGH(P = 2) than Strategy B, no matter what the rivals do, then it seems foolish ever to use A. LOW( P = 1) 4, 4 6, 3 • One way to simplify a game, and see if we can predict what a player will do, is eliminate all A HIGH(P = 2) 3, 6 5, 5 dominated strategies and see what we have left. • Pricing High is a dominated by pricing Low for Firm A. B LOW(P = 1) HIGH(P = 2) Pricing High is also dominated by LOW( P = 1) 4, 4 6, 3 pricing Low for Firm B. A HIGH(P = 2) 3, 6 5, 5 B LOW(P = 1) HIGH(P = 2) The only equilibrium outcome is LOW( P = 1) 4, 4 6, 3 both Firms pricing Low. A HIGH(P = 2) 3, 6 5, 5 Big Games B LEFT MIDDLERIGHT • Eliminating dominated strategies can make solving big games a lot easier: TOP 6, 2 10,2 7,3 CENTER 5, 3 9,1 6, 1 A BOTTOM 4, 2 8, 1 3,7 Equilibrium B LEFT MIDDLE RIGHT • When the elimination of dominated strategies leads to a single pair of strategies, TOP 6, 2 9, 3 5, 1 then we call this an equilibrium of a game. • Some games, however, do not have CENTER 5, 3 10, 2 6, 1 dominated strategies, or after elimination, A do not lead to a single pair of strategies. BOTTOM 4, 2 8, 1 7, 3 • For example, the next game has no dominated strategies. Nash Equilibrium • John Nash, the celebrated mathematician (Nobel Prize, A Beautiful Mind) became famous for suggesting how to solve this problem. • A Nash equilibrium is a situation in which economic actors interacting with one another each choose their best strategy given the strategies that all the other actors have chosen Nash Equilibrium •A Best Response to a rival player’s strategy s, is a strategy choice that, assuming the rival plays s is the payoff maximizing choice. • A Nash equilibrium is a pair of strategies that are best responses to each other. Some Games may have many Nash Some Games May Have No Nash equilibria. Equilibria (in non-random strategies) B B LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT TOP 0, 1 -2, 0 A A TOP 0, 0 0, -1 BOTTOM -3, -1 -1, 0 BOTTOM 1, 0 -1, 3 Sequential Games and Backward Induction A sequential game is a game in which players A sequential game is a game in which players make at least some of their decisions at make at least some of their decisions at different times. different times. • Sequential games can almost always be solved by ‘Backward Induction’ • This is like doing sequential elimination of dominated strategies starting from the end of the game going to the beginning. Nim Version 1 • Start with a pile of matches 2First • Take turns. When it is your turn, you can 3 take either 1 or 2 matches from the pile. 4 • If it is your turn and there is just 1 match 5 left in the pile, you lose. 6 7 8 2First 2First 3First 3First 4 4 Second 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 2First 2First 3First 3First 4 Second 4 Second 5First 5First 6 6First 7 7 8 8 2First 2First 3First 3First 4 Second 4 Second 5First 5First 6First 6First 7 Second 7 Second 8 8First Nim Version 2 NIM Version 3 • Start with two piles of matches • Pearls Before Swine • Take turns. When it is your turn, you can • http://www.transience.com.au/pearl.html take 1 or more matches from either pile. • You are not allowed to take matches from both piles. • If it is your turn and there is just 1 match left in one pile and no matches left in the other pile, you lose. Addition Game 90 – 99 First Two players, A and B take turns choosing a number between 1 and 10 (inclusive). A goes first. The cumulative total of all the numbers chosen is calculated as the game progresses. The player whose choice takes the total to exactly 100 is the winner. 90 – 99 First 90 – 99 First 89 Second 89 Second 79 – 88 First 90 – 99 First 90 – 99 First 89 Second 89 Second 79 – 88 First 79 – 88 First 78 Second 78 Second 68 – 77 First 90 – 99 First 90 – 99 First 89 Second 89 Second 79 – 88 First 79 – 88 First 78 Second 78 Second 68 – 77 First 68 – 77 First 67 Second 67 Second ………. 1 Second (-5, -5) e c u d ro P (100, 0) A oduce Not Pr (0, 100) e c u d e o c r u P d ro (0, 0) P duce t Pro (5, 24) B No Not Produce A ce ri P h g (-10, 20) Hi A rice Low P Note: B’s profits are shown first (0, 27) e r c e i t r n P E h ig (0, 23) H rice ow P B L Not Enter A Note: B’s profits are shown first Bargaining January $120 Firm February $80 Union (-5, 5) March $50 Firm e c u April $20 Union d ro P (100, 0) A oduce Not Pr (0, 110) e c u d e o c r u P d ro (0, 0) P duce t Pro B No Not Produce A Note: B’s profits are shown first • Solve this problem by going to the end of the • In February, Union must offer Firm at least $30; if game and working backward.
Recommended publications
  • Labsi Working Papers

    Labsi Working Papers

    UNIVERSITY OF SIENA S.N. O’ H iggins Arturo Palomba Patrizia Sbriglia Second Mover Advantage and Bertrand Dynamic Competition: An Experiment May 2010 LABSI WORKING PAPERS N. 28/2010 SECOND MOVER ADVANTAGE AND BERTRAND DYNAMIC COMPETITION: AN EXPERIMENT § S.N. O’Higgins University of Salerno [email protected] Arturo Palomba University of Naples II [email protected] Patrizia Sbriglia §§ University of Naples II [email protected] Abstract In this paper we provide an experimental test of a dynamic Bertrand duopolistic model, where firms move sequentially and their informational setting varies across different designs. Our experiment is composed of three treatments. In the first treatment, subjects receive information only on the costs and demand parameters and on the price’ choices of their opponent in the market in which they are positioned (matching is fixed); in the second and third treatments, subjects are also informed on the behaviour of players who are not directly operating in their market. Our aim is to study whether the individual behaviour and the process of equilibrium convergence are affected by the specific informational setting adopted. In all treatments we selected students who had previously studied market games and industrial organization, conjecturing that the specific participants’ expertise decreased the chances of imitation in treatment II and III. However, our results prove the opposite: the extra information provided in treatment II and III strongly affects the long run convergence to the market equilibrium. In fact, whilst in the first session, a high proportion of markets converge to the Nash-Bertrand symmetric solution, we observe that a high proportion of markets converge to more collusive outcomes in treatment II and more competitive outcomes in treatment III.
  • 1 Sequential Games

    1 Sequential Games

    1 Sequential Games We call games where players take turns moving “sequential games”. Sequential games consist of the same elements as normal form games –there are players, rules, outcomes, and payo¤s. However, sequential games have the added element that history of play is now important as players can make decisions conditional on what other players have done. Thus, if two people are playing a game of Chess the second mover is able to observe the …rst mover’s initial move prior to making his initial move. While it is possible to represent sequential games using the strategic (or matrix) form representation of the game it is more instructive at …rst to represent sequential games using a game tree. In addition to the players, actions, outcomes, and payo¤s, the game tree will provide a history of play or a path of play. A very basic example of a sequential game is the Entrant-Incumbent game. The game is described as follows: Consider a game where there is an entrant and an incumbent. The entrant moves …rst and the incumbent observes the entrant’sdecision. The entrant can choose to either enter the market or remain out of the market. If the entrant remains out of the market then the game ends and the entrant receives a payo¤ of 0 while the incumbent receives a payo¤ of 2. If the entrant chooses to enter the market then the incumbent gets to make a choice. The incumbent chooses between …ghting entry or accommodating entry. If the incumbent …ghts the entrant receives a payo¤ of 3 while the incumbent receives a payo¤ of 1.
  • Game Theory- Prisoners Dilemma Vs Battle of the Sexes EXCERPTS

    Game Theory- Prisoners Dilemma Vs Battle of the Sexes EXCERPTS

    Lesson 14. Game Theory 1 Lesson 14 Game Theory c 2010, 2011 ⃝ Roberto Serrano and Allan M. Feldman All rights reserved Version C 1. Introduction In the last lesson we discussed duopoly markets in which two firms compete to sell a product. In such markets, the firms behave strategically; each firm must think about what the other firm is doing in order to decide what it should do itself. The theory of duopoly was originally developed in the 19th century, but it led to the theory of games in the 20th century. The first major book in game theory, published in 1944, was Theory of Games and Economic Behavior,byJohnvon Neumann (1903-1957) and Oskar Morgenstern (1902-1977). We will return to the contributions of Von Neumann and Morgenstern in Lesson 19, on uncertainty and expected utility. Agroupofpeople(orteams,firms,armies,countries)areinagame if their decision problems are interdependent, in the sense that the actions that all of them take influence the outcomes for everyone. Game theory is the study of games; it can also be called interactive decision theory. Many real-life interactions can be viewed as games. Obviously football, soccer, and baseball games are games.Butsoaretheinteractionsofduopolists,thepoliticalcampaignsbetweenparties before an election, and the interactions of armed forces and countries. Even some interactions between animal or plant species in nature can be modeled as games. In fact, game theory has been used in many different fields in recent decades, including economics, political science, psychology, sociology, computer science, and biology. This brief lesson is not meant to replace a formal course in game theory; it is only an in- troduction.
  • Lecture Notes

    Lecture Notes

    GRADUATE GAME THEORY LECTURE NOTES BY OMER TAMUZ California Institute of Technology 2018 Acknowledgments These lecture notes are partially adapted from Osborne and Rubinstein [29], Maschler, Solan and Zamir [23], lecture notes by Federico Echenique, and slides by Daron Acemoglu and Asu Ozdaglar. I am indebted to Seo Young (Silvia) Kim and Zhuofang Li for their help in finding and correcting many errors. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. 2 Contents 1 Extensive form games with perfect information 7 1.1 Tic-Tac-Toe ........................................ 7 1.2 The Sweet Fifteen Game ................................ 7 1.3 Chess ............................................ 7 1.4 Definition of extensive form games with perfect information ........... 10 1.5 The ultimatum game .................................. 10 1.6 Equilibria ......................................... 11 1.7 The centipede game ................................... 11 1.8 Subgames and subgame perfect equilibria ...................... 13 1.9 The dollar auction .................................... 14 1.10 Backward induction, Kuhn’s Theorem and a proof of Zermelo’s Theorem ... 15 2 Strategic form games 17 2.1 Definition ......................................... 17 2.2 Nash equilibria ...................................... 17 2.3 Classical examples .................................... 17 2.4 Dominated strategies .................................. 22 2.5 Repeated elimination of dominated strategies ................... 22 2.6 Dominant strategies ..................................
  • 1 Bertrand Model

    1 Bertrand Model

    ECON 312: Oligopolisitic Competition 1 Industrial Organization Oligopolistic Competition Both the monopoly and the perfectly competitive market structure has in common is that neither has to concern itself with the strategic choices of its competition. In the former, this is trivially true since there isn't any competition. While the latter is so insignificant that the single firm has no effect. In an oligopoly where there is more than one firm, and yet because the number of firms are small, they each have to consider what the other does. Consider the product launch decision, and pricing decision of Apple in relation to the IPOD models. If the features of the models it has in the line up is similar to Creative Technology's, it would have to be concerned with the pricing decision, and the timing of its announcement in relation to that of the other firm. We will now begin the exposition of Oligopolistic Competition. 1 Bertrand Model Firms can compete on several variables, and levels, for example, they can compete based on their choices of prices, quantity, and quality. The most basic and funda- mental competition pertains to pricing choices. The Bertrand Model is examines the interdependence between rivals' decisions in terms of pricing decisions. The assumptions of the model are: 1. 2 firms in the market, i 2 f1; 2g. 2. Goods produced are homogenous, ) products are perfect substitutes. 3. Firms set prices simultaneously. 4. Each firm has the same constant marginal cost of c. What is the equilibrium, or best strategy of each firm? The answer is that both firms will set the same prices, p1 = p2 = p, and that it will be equal to the marginal ECON 312: Oligopolisitic Competition 2 cost, in other words, the perfectly competitive outcome.
  • CS599: Algorithm Design in Strategic Settings Fall 2012 Lecture 2: Game Theory Preliminaries

    CS599: Algorithm Design in Strategic Settings Fall 2012 Lecture 2: Game Theory Preliminaries

    CS599: Algorithm Design in Strategic Settings Fall 2012 Lecture 2: Game Theory Preliminaries Instructor: Shaddin Dughmi Administrivia Website: http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~shaddin/cs599fa12 Or go to www.cs.usc.edu/people/shaddin and follow link Emails? Registration Outline 1 Games of Complete Information 2 Games of Incomplete Information Prior-free Games Bayesian Games Outline 1 Games of Complete Information 2 Games of Incomplete Information Prior-free Games Bayesian Games Example: Rock, Paper, Scissors Figure: Rock, Paper, Scissors Games of Complete Information 2/23 Rock, Paper, Scissors is an example of the most basic type of game. Simultaneous move, complete information games Players act simultaneously Each player incurs a utility, determined only by the players’ (joint) actions. Equivalently, player actions determine “state of the world” or “outcome of the game”. The payoff structure of the game, i.e. the map from action vectors to utility vectors, is common knowledge Games of Complete Information 3/23 Typically thought of as an n-dimensional matrix, indexed by a 2 A, with entry (u1(a); : : : ; un(a)). Also useful for representing more general games, like sequential and incomplete information games, but is less natural there. Figure: Generic Normal Form Matrix Standard mathematical representation of such games: Normal Form A game in normal form is a tuple (N; A; u), where N is a finite set of players. Denote n = jNj and N = f1; : : : ; ng. A = A1 × :::An, where Ai is the set of actions of player i. Each ~a = (a1; : : : ; an) 2 A is called an action profile. u = (u1; : : : un), where ui : A ! R is the utility function of player i.
  • Finitely Repeated Games

    Finitely Repeated Games

    Repeated games 1: Finite repetition Universidad Carlos III de Madrid 1 Finitely repeated games • A finitely repeated game is a dynamic game in which a simultaneous game (the stage game) is played finitely many times, and the result of each stage is observed before the next one is played. • Example: Play the prisoners’ dilemma several times. The stage game is the simultaneous prisoners’ dilemma game. 2 Results • If the stage game (the simultaneous game) has only one NE the repeated game has only one SPNE: In the SPNE players’ play the strategies in the NE in each stage. • If the stage game has 2 or more NE, one can find a SPNE where, at some stage, players play a strategy that is not part of a NE of the stage game. 3 The prisoners’ dilemma repeated twice • Two players play the same simultaneous game twice, at ! = 1 and at ! = 2. • After the first time the game is played (after ! = 1) the result is observed before playing the second time. • The payoff in the repeated game is the sum of the payoffs in each stage (! = 1, ! = 2) • Which is the SPNE? Player 2 D C D 1 , 1 5 , 0 Player 1 C 0 , 5 4 , 4 4 The prisoners’ dilemma repeated twice Information sets? Strategies? 1 .1 5 for each player 2" for each player D C E.g.: (C, D, D, C, C) Subgames? 2.1 5 D C D C .2 1.3 1.5 1 1.4 D C D C D C D C 2.2 2.3 2 .4 2.5 D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C 1+1 1+5 1+0 1+4 5+1 5+5 5+0 5+4 0+1 0+5 0+0 0+4 4+1 4+5 4+0 4+4 1+1 1+0 1+5 1+4 0+1 0+0 0+5 0+4 5+1 5+0 5+5 5+4 4+1 4+0 4+5 4+4 The prisoners’ dilemma repeated twice Let’s find the NE in the subgames.
  • Prisoners of Reason Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy

    Prisoners of Reason Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy

    C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/6549131/WORKINGFOLDER/AMADAE/9781107064034PRE.3D iii [1–28] 11.8.2015 9:57PM Prisoners of Reason Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy S. M. AMADAE Massachusetts Institute of Technology C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/6549131/WORKINGFOLDER/AMADAE/9781107064034PRE.3D iv [1–28] 11.8.2015 9:57PM 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, ny 10013-2473, usa Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107671195 © S. M. Amadae 2015 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2015 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Amadae, S. M., author. Prisoners of reason : game theory and neoliberal political economy / S.M. Amadae. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-1-107-06403-4 (hbk. : alk. paper) – isbn 978-1-107-67119-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Game theory – Political aspects. 2. International relations. 3. Neoliberalism. 4. Social choice – Political aspects. 5. Political science – Philosophy. I. Title. hb144.a43 2015 320.01′5193 – dc23 2015020954 isbn 978-1-107-06403-4 Hardback isbn 978-1-107-67119-5 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
  • Unemployment in an Extended Cournot Oligopoly Model∗

    Unemployment in an Extended Cournot Oligopoly Model∗

    Unemployment in an Extended Cournot Oligopoly Model∗ Claude d'Aspremont,y Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreiraz and Louis-Andr´eG´erard-Varetx 1 Introduction Attempts to explain unemployment1 begin with the labour market. Yet, by attributing it to deficient demand for goods, Keynes questioned the use of partial analysis, and stressed the need to consider interactions between the labour and product markets. Imperfect competition in the labour market, reflecting union power, has been a favoured explanation; but imperfect competition may also affect employment through producers' oligopolistic behaviour. This again points to a general equilibrium approach such as that by Negishi (1961, 1979). Here we propose an extension of the Cournot oligopoly model (unlike that of Gabszewicz and Vial (1972), where labour does not appear), which takes full account of the interdependence between the labour market and any product market. Our extension shares some features with both Negishi's conjectural approach to demand curves, and macroeconomic non-Walrasian equi- ∗Reprinted from Oxford Economic Papers, 41, 490-505, 1989. We thank P. Champsaur, P. Dehez, J.H. Dr`ezeand J.-J. Laffont for helpful comments. We owe P. Dehez the idea of a light strengthening of the results on involuntary unemployment given in a related paper (CORE D.P. 8408): see Dehez (1985), where the case of monopoly is studied. Acknowledgements are also due to Peter Sinclair and the Referees for valuable suggestions. This work is part of the program \Micro-d´ecisionset politique ´economique"of Commissariat G´en´eral au Plan. Financial support of Commissariat G´en´eralau Plan is gratefully acknowledged.
  • Dynamic Games Under Bounded Rationality

    Dynamic Games Under Bounded Rationality

    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Dynamic Games under Bounded Rationality Zhao, Guo Southwest University for Nationalities 8 March 2015 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/62688/ MPRA Paper No. 62688, posted 09 Mar 2015 08:52 UTC Dynamic Games under Bounded Rationality By ZHAO GUO I propose a dynamic game model that is consistent with the paradigm of bounded rationality. Its main advantages over the traditional approach based on perfect rationality are that: (1) the strategy space is a chain-complete partially ordered set; (2) the response function is certain order-preserving map on strategy space; (3) the evolution of economic system can be described by the Dynamical System defined by the response function under iteration; (4) the existence of pure-strategy Nash equilibria can be guaranteed by fixed point theorems for ordered structures, rather than topological structures. This preference-response framework liberates economics from the utility concept, and constitutes a marriage of normal-form and extensive-form games. Among the common assumptions of classical existence theorems for competitive equilibrium, one is central. That is, individuals are assumed to have perfect rationality, so as to maximize their utilities (payoffs in game theoretic usage). With perfect rationality and perfect competition, the competitive equilibrium is completely determined, and the equilibrium depends only on their goals and their environments. With perfect rationality and perfect competition, the classical economic theory turns out to be deductive theory that requires almost no contact with empirical data once its assumptions are accepted as axioms (see Simon 1959). Zhao: Southwest University for Nationalities, Chengdu 610041, China (e-mail: [email protected]).
  • Nash Equilibrium

    Nash Equilibrium

    Lecture 3: Nash equilibrium Nash equilibrium: The mathematician John Nash introduced the concept of an equi- librium for a game, and equilibrium is often called a Nash equilibrium. They provide a way to identify reasonable outcomes when an easy argument based on domination (like in the prisoner's dilemma, see lecture 2) is not available. We formulate the concept of an equilibrium for a two player game with respective 0 payoff matrices PR and PC . We write PR(s; s ) for the payoff for player R when R plays 0 s and C plays s, this is simply the (s; s ) entry the matrix PR. Definition 1. A pair of strategies (^sR; s^C ) is an Nash equilbrium for a two player game if no player can improve his payoff by changing his strategy from his equilibrium strategy to another strategy provided his opponent keeps his equilibrium strategy. In terms of the payoffs matrices this means that PR(sR; s^C ) ≤ P (^sR; s^C ) for all sR ; and PC (^sR; sC ) ≤ P (^sR; s^C ) for all sc : The idea at work in the definition of Nash equilibrium deserves a name: Definition 2. A strategy s^R is a best-response to a strategy sc if PR(sR; sC ) ≤ P (^sR; sC ) for all sR ; i.e. s^R is such that max PR(sR; sC ) = P (^sR; sC ) sR We can now reformulate the idea of a Nash equilibrium as The pair (^sR; s^C ) is a Nash equilibrium if and only ifs ^R is a best-response tos ^C and s^C is a best-response tos ^R.
  • A Supergame-Theoretic Model of Business Cycles and Price Wars During Booms

    A Supergame-Theoretic Model of Business Cycles and Price Wars During Booms

    working paper department of economics A SUPERGAME-THEORETIC MODEL OF BUSINESS CYCLES AND PRICE WARS DURING BOOMS Julio J. Rotemberg and Garth Saloner* M.I.T. Working Paper #349 July 1984 massachusetts institute of technology 50 memorial drive Cambridge, mass. 021 39 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from IVIIT Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/supergametheoret349rote model of 'a supergame-theoretic BUSINESS CYCLES AOT) PRICE WARS DURING BOOMS Julio J. Rotemberg and Garth Saloner* ' M.I.T. Working Paper #349 July 1984 ^^ ""' and Department of Economics --P^^^i^J^' *Slo.n ;-..>>ool of Management Lawrence summers -^.any^helpful^^ .ei;ix;teful to ^ames.Poterba and ^^^^^^^ from the Mationax do conversations, Financial support is gratefully acknowledged.^ SEt8209266 and SES-8308782 respectively) 12 ABSTRACT This paper studies implicitly colluding oligopolists facing fluctuating demand. The credible threat of future punishments provides the discipline that facilitates collusion. However, we find that the temptation to unilaterally deviate from the collusive outcome is often greater when demand is high. To moderate this temptation, the optimizing oligopoly reduces its profitability at such times, resulting in lower prices. If the oligopolists' output is an input to other sectors, their output may increase too. This explains the co-movements of outputs which characterize business cycles. The behavior of the railroads in the 1880' s, the automobile industry in the 1950's and the cyclical behavior of cement prices and price-cost margins support our theory. (j.E.L. Classification numbers: 020, 130, 610). I. INTRODUCTION This paper has two objectives. First it is an exploration of the way in which oligopolies behave over the business cycle.