IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1808.06750.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The strategy of conflict and cooperation

Author

Listed:
  • Mehmet S. Ismail

Abstract

This paper introduces a unified framework called cooperative extensive form games, which (i) generalizes standard non-cooperative games, and (ii) allows for more complex coalition formation dynamics than previous concepts like coalition-proof Nash equilibrium. Central to this framework is a novel solution concept called cooperative equilibrium system (CES). CES differs from Nash equilibrium in two important respects. First, a CES is immune to both unilateral and multilateral `credible' deviations. Second, unlike Nash equilibrium, whose stability relies on the assumption that the strategies of non-deviating players are held fixed, CES allows for the possibility that players may regroup and adjust their strategies in response to a deviation. The main result establishes that every cooperative extensive form game, possibly with imperfect information, possesses a CES. For games with perfect information, the proof is constructive. This framework is broadly applicable in contexts such as oligopolistic markets and dynamic political bargaining.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehmet S. Ismail, 2018. "The strategy of conflict and cooperation," Papers 1808.06750, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1808.06750
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.06750
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roberto Serrano, 2004. "Fifty Years of the Nash Program, 1953-2003," Working Papers 2004-20, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    2. Herings, P. Jean-Jacques & Mauleon, Ana & Vannetelbosch, Vincent, 2009. "Farsightedly stable networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 526-541, November.
    3. H. Peyton Young & Shmuel Zamir (ed.), 2015. "Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 4, number 4.
    4. John C. Harsanyi, 1974. "An Equilibrium-Point Interpretation of Stable Sets and a Proposed Alternative Definition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(11), pages 1472-1495, July.
    5. M A Krajewska & H Kopfer & G Laporte & S Ropke & G Zaccour, 2008. "Horizontal cooperation among freight carriers: request allocation and profit sharing," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(11), pages 1483-1491, November.
    6. Binmore, Ken, 2007. "Game Theory: A Very Short Introduction," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199218462.
    7. Steven Brams & Michael Jones & D. Kilgour, 2005. "Forming stable coalitions: The process matters," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 67-94, July.
    8. Perea,Andrés, 2012. "Epistemic Game Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107401396.
    9. Roberto Serrano, 2005. "Fifty years of the Nash program, 1953-2003," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(2), pages 219-258, May.
    10. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    11. Karos, Dominik & Kasper, Laura, 2018. "Farsighted Rationality," Research Memorandum 011, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    12. Perea,Andrés, 2012. "Epistemic Game Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107008915.
    13. Bloch, Francis, 1996. "Sequential Formation of Coalitions in Games with Externalities and Fixed Payoff Division," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 90-123, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrés Perea & Elias Tsakas, 2019. "Limited focus in dynamic games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(2), pages 571-607, June.
    2. Sanjit Dhami & Emma Manifold & Ali al‐Nowaihi, 2021. "Identity and Redistribution: Theory and Evidence," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 499-531, April.
    3. Ray, Debraj & Vohra, Rajiv, 2015. "Coalition Formation," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    4. Tsakas, Elias, 2014. "Epistemic equivalence of extended belief hierarchies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 126-144.
    5. Chessa, Michela & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Lardon, Aymeric & Yamada, Takashi, 2023. "An experiment on the Nash program: A comparison of two strategic mechanisms implementing the Shapley value," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 88-104.
    6. Joseph Y. Halpern & Yoram Moses, 2017. "Characterizing solution concepts in terms of common knowledge of rationality," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(2), pages 457-473, May.
    7. Heifetz, Aviad & Meier, Martin & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2013. "Dynamic unawareness and rationalizable behavior," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 50-68.
    8. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "Bayesian game theorists and non-Bayesian players," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1420-1454, November.
    9. Kimya, Mert, 2021. "Coalition Formation Under Dominance Invariance," Working Papers 202106, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
    10. Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Equilibrium coalitional behavior," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(2), May.
    11. Duggan, John, 2017. "Existence of stationary bargaining equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 111-126.
    12. Dekel, Eddie & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2015. "Epistemic Game Theory," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    13. Perea, Andrés, 2022. "Common belief in rationality in games with unawareness," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 11-30.
    14. Cubukcu, K. Mert, 2020. "The problem of fair division of surplus development rights in redevelopment of urban areas: Can the Shapley value help?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    15. Shuige Liu & Fabio Maccheroni, 2021. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Rationalizability: Inside the Black Box," Papers 2106.16081, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    16. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & De Vito, Nicodemo, 2021. "Beliefs, plans, and perceived intentions in dynamic games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    17. Tsakas, Elias, 2014. "Rational belief hierarchies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 121-127.
    18. Papatya Duman & Walter Trockel, 2016. "On non-cooperative foundation and implementation of the Nash solution in subgame perfect equilibrium via Rubinstein's game," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 1(1), pages 83-107, December.
    19. Yi-Chun Chen & Xiao Luo & Chen Qu, 2016. "Rationalizability in general situations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(1), pages 147-167, January.
    20. Áron Tóbiás, 2021. "Meet meets join: the interaction between pooled and common knowledge," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(4), pages 989-1019, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:1808.06750. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.