IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v42y2004i4p679-689.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two-Player Asymmetric Contests with Ratio-Form Contest Success Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Kyung Hwan Baik

Abstract

I examine players' equilibrium effort levels in two-player asymmetric contests with ratio-form contest success functions. I first characterize the Nash equilibrium of the simultaneous-move game. I show that the equilibrium effort ratio is equal to the valuation ratio, and that the prize dissipation ratios for the players are the same. I also show that the prize dissipation ratio for each player is less than or equal to the minimum of the players' probabilities of winning at the Nash equilibrium and thus never exceeds a half. Then I examine how the equilibrium effort ratio, the prize dissipation ratios, and the players' equilibrium effort levels respond when the players' valuations for the prize or their abilities change. (JEL D72, C72) Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Kyung Hwan Baik, 2004. "Two-Player Asymmetric Contests with Ratio-Form Contest Success Functions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 42(4), pages 679-689, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:42:y:2004:i:4:p:679-689
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ei/cbh089
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kyung Hwan Baik & Jihyun Kim, 2014. "Contests with Bilateral Delegation: Unobservable Contracts," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 170(3), pages 387-405, September.
    2. Samuel Häfner & Georg Nöldeke, 2022. "Sorting in iterated incumbency contests," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(4), pages 1103-1140, November.
    3. Radhika Santhanam & De Liu & Wei-Cheng Milton Shen, 2016. "Research Note—Gamification of Technology-Mediated Training: Not All Competitions Are the Same," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 453-465, June.
    4. Malueg, David A. & Yates, Andrew J., 2006. "Citizen participation in pollution permit markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 205-217, March.
    5. Robert Ridlon, 2016. "Does Manufacturer Advertising Crowd‐in or Crowd‐out Retailer Advertising? An Application of an Endogenous Prize Contest with Asymmetric Players," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 83(2), pages 364-379, October.
    6. Camilla Mastromarco & Marco Runkel, 2009. "Rule changes and competitive balance in Formula One motor racing," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(23), pages 3003-3014.
    7. Gürtler, Oliver, 2006. "Contractual Incentive Provision and Commitment in Rent-Seeking Contests," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 100, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    8. Maria Arbatskaya & Hugo Mialon, 2010. "Multi-activity contests," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 43(1), pages 23-43, April.
    9. Goel, Sumit & Goyal, Amit, 2023. "Optimal tie-breaking rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    10. Matthew D. Mitchell, 2019. "Uncontestable favoritism," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 167-190, October.
    11. Kyung Hwan Baik, 2007. "Equilibrium Contingent Compensation in Contests with Delegation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(4), pages 986-1002, April.
    12. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Eric Langlais & Bruno Lovat & Francesco Parisi, 2013. "Asymmetries in Rent-Seeking," EconomiX Working Papers 2013-5, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    13. Häfner, Samuel, 2017. "A tug-of-war team contest," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 372-391.
    14. Wang Zhewei, 2010. "The Optimal Accuracy Level in Asymmetric Contests," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Sakshi Gupta & Ram Singh, 2018. "On Existence and Properties of Pure-strategy Equilibria under Contests," Working papers 288, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    16. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2010. "Contest success function with the possibility of a draw: Axiomatization," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 267-276, March.
    17. Robert Ridlon & Jiwoong Shin, 2013. "Favoring the Winner or Loser in Repeated Contests," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 768-785, September.
    18. Malueg, David A. & Yates, Andrew J., 2005. "Equilibria and comparative statics in two-player contests," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 738-752, September.
    19. Kyung Hwan Baik & Dongryul Lee, 2012. "Do Rent‐Seeking Groups Announce Their Sharing Rules?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 348-363, April.
    20. Kyung Hwan Baik & Jong Hwa Lee, 2013. "Endogenous Timing In Contests With Delegation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(4), pages 2044-2055, October.
    21. Christian Ewerhart & Julian Teichgräber, 2019. "Multi-battle contests, finite automata, and the tug-of-war," ECON - Working Papers 318, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    22. Jaesoo Kim & Jongwoo Park, 2014. "Monitoring in Tournaments," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 34(3), pages 1431-1437.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:42:y:2004:i:4:p:679-689. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.