IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Classical, Modern, and New Game Theory / Klassische, Moderne und Neue Spieltheorie

Listed author(s):
  • Holler Manfred J.

    ()

    (Institute of SocioEconomics, Universität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 5, D-20146 Hamburg)

Registered author(s):

    This paper is a brief history of game theory with its main theme being the nature of the decision makers assumed in the various stages of its historical development. It demonstrates that changes in the “image of man” nourished the developments of what many believe to be progress in game theory. The first stage, classical game theory, is defined by John von Neumann’s and Oskar Morgenstern’s pioneering book “Game Theory and Economic Behavior” which introduced the concept of individual rational players and focuses on conflicting interests. The second stage, modern game theory, is defined by the Nash player who is not only rational but, at least implicitly, assumes that all players are rational to such a degree that players can coordinate their strategies so that a Nash equilibrium prevails. The third stage, new game theory, is defined by the Harsanyi player who is rational but knows very little about the other players, e.g., their payoff functions or the way they form beliefs about other players’ payoff functions or beliefs. The Harsanyi player either plays a highly sophisticated epistemic game on the forming of beliefs or rests content with himself by imitating the observed successful behavior of other agents.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jbnst.2002.222.issue-5/jbnst-2002-0504/jbnst-2002-0504.xml?format=INT
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by De Gruyter in its journal Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik).

    Volume (Year): 222 (2002)
    Issue (Month): 5 (October)
    Pages: 556-583

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:jns:jbstat:v:222:y:2002:i:5:p:556-583
    Contact details of provider: Web page: https://www.degruyter.com

    Order Information: Web: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jbnst

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Ralf Peters, 1997. "The Stability of Networks: an Evolutionary Approach to Standardization," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 14, pages 347-355.
    2. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    3. Bruno S. Frey & Manfred J. Holler, 1998. "Tax Compliance Policy Reconsidered," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 15, pages 27-45.
    4. George J. Mailath, 1998. "Corrigenda [Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory]," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 1941-1941, December.
    5. Bolle, Friedel, 1990. "High reward experiments without high expenditure for the experimenter?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 157-167, June.
    6. Robert Aumann & Adam Brandenburger, 2014. "Epistemic Conditions for Nash Equilibrium," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 5, pages 113-136 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Joachim Frohn & Werner G³th & Hartmut Kliemt & Reinhard Selten, 2001. "Editors' Introduction to "Making Choices I"," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 18, pages 1-17.
    8. Battigalli, Pierpaolo, 1997. "On Rationalizability in Extensive Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 40-61, May.
    9. Reinhard Selten & Axel Ostmann, 2001. "Imitation Equilibrium," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 18, pages 111-149.
    10. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1007-1028, July.
    11. Ben Polak, 1999. "Epistemic Conditions for Nash Equilibrium, and Common Knowledge of Rationality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 673-676, May.
    12. In-Koo Cho & David M. Kreps, 1987. "Signaling Games and Stable Equilibria," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 179-221.
    13. Samuelson, Larry & Zhang, Jianbo, 1992. "Evolutionary stability in asymmetric games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 363-391, August.
    14. Kreps, David M. & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Reputation and imperfect information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 253-279, August.
    15. Holler, Manfred J., 1990. "The unprofitability of mixed-strategy equilibria in two-person games : A second folk-theorem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 319-323, April.
    16. Roger Sherman & Thomas D. Willett, 1967. "Potential Entrants Discourage Entry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 75, pages 400-400.
    17. Luciano Andreozzi, 2002. "Oscilliations in the Enforcement of Law: an Evolutionary Analysis," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 18, pages 403-428.
    18. Robert J. Aumann, 1999. "Interactive epistemology I: Knowledge," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(3), pages 263-300.
    19. Schwalbe, Ulrich & Walker, Paul, 2001. "Zermelo and the Early History of Game Theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 123-137, January.
    20. Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-1050, July.
    21. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 1999. "Hierarchies of Conditional Beliefs and Interactive Epistemology in Dynamic Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 188-230, September.
    22. George J. Mailath, 1998. "Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1347-1374, September.
    23. Guth, Werner & Huck, Steffen & Ockenfels, Peter, 1996. "Two-Level Ultimatum Bargaining with Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 593-604, May.
    24. Andreas Diekmann, 1985. "Volunteer's Dilemma," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(4), pages 605-610, December.
    25. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-154, Summer.
    26. Binmore, Ken & Morgan, Peter & Snaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1991. "Do people exploit their bargaining power? An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 295-322, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jns:jbstat:v:222:y:2002:i:5:p:556-583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.