IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v3y1991i3p343-350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crime and Punishment: Further Reflections on the Counterintuitive Results of Mixed Equilibria Games

Author

Listed:
  • Franz Weissing
  • Elinor Ostrom

Abstract

In a series of related articles, George Tsebelis (1989, 1990, 1991) challenges political theorists to rethink the foundations of policy analysis. His major critique of policy analyses, based on decision theory (where one individual decides in an inanimate but not certain environment) rather than on game theory (where one individual decides in an environment with other strategic individuals), has weathered the storm of commentaries made on his work. Tsebelis's argument, that payoff changes for one player do not affect the behavior of that player at a mixed-strategy equilibrium, holds in some cases but not in others. Whether changes in the payoffs of one player affect that player's behavior at a mixed-strategy equilibrium depends upon the type of linkages that exist between that player and the others in the frame or in a similar position in a game. In this note we have stated the general conditions under which changes in the payoffs of one player do not affect that player's behavior at equilibrium and when they do.

Suggested Citation

  • Franz Weissing & Elinor Ostrom, 1991. "Crime and Punishment: Further Reflections on the Counterintuitive Results of Mixed Equilibria Games," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 343-350, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:3:y:1991:i:3:p:343-350
    DOI: 10.1177/0951692891003003006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692891003003006
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951692891003003006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wittman, Donald, 1985. "Counter-intuitive results in game theory," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-89.
    2. Tsebelis, George, 1989. "The Abuse of Probability in Political Analysis: The Robinson Crusoe Fallacy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(1), pages 77-91, March.
    3. Jack Hirshleifer & Eric Rasmusen, 1992. "Are Equilibrium Strategies Unaffected by Incentives?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 4(3), pages 353-367, July.
    4. Bianco, William T. & Ordeshook, Peter C. & Tsebelis, George, 1990. "Crime and Punishment: Are One-Shot, Two-Person Games Enough?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 569-586, June.
    5. George Tsebelis, 1990. "Penalty has no Impact on Crime:," Rationality and Society, , vol. 2(3), pages 255-286, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Rimawan Pradiptyo, 2015. "A Certain Uncertainty; Assessment of Court Decisions in Tackling Corruption in Indonesia," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: R N Ghosh & M A B Siddique (ed.), CORRUPTION, GOOD GOVERNANCE and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Contemporary Analysis and Case Studies, chapter 10, pages 167-215, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Gianfranco Gambarelli & Daniele Gervasio & Francesca Maggioni & Daniel Faccini, 2022. "A Stackelberg game for the Italian tax evasion problem," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 295-307, June.
    3. Lam, Wai Fung, 1996. "Improving the performance of small-scale irrigation systems: The effects of technological investments and governance structure on irrigation performance in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(8), pages 1301-1315, August.
    4. Laurent Franckx, 2004. "Penalty and Crime with Lumpy Choices," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(4), pages 403-421, October.

    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. Gianfranco Gambarelli & Daniele Gervasio & Francesca Maggioni & Daniel Faccini, 2022. "A Stackelberg game for the Italian tax evasion problem," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 295-307, June.
    2. Rimawan Pradiptyo, 2015. "A Certain Uncertainty; Assessment of Court Decisions in Tackling Corruption in Indonesia," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: R N Ghosh & M A B Siddique (ed.), CORRUPTION, GOOD GOVERNANCE and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Contemporary Analysis and Case Studies, chapter 10, pages 167-215, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Jack Hirshleifer & Eric Rasmusen, 1992. "Are Equilibrium Strategies Unaffected by Incentives?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 4(3), pages 353-367, July.
    4. Heiko Rauhut & Marcel Junker, 2009. "Punishment Deters Crime Because Humans Are Bounded in Their Strategic Decision-Making," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 12(3), pages 1-1.
    5. Roland Kirstein, 2014. "Doping, the Inspection Game, and Bayesian Enforcement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 15(4), pages 385-409, August.
    6. Kirstein, Roland, 2005. "Bayesian Monitoring," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 2005-06, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
    7. George Tsebelis, 1993. "Penalty and Crime: Further Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 5(3), pages 349-374, July.
    8. Shidiqi, khalifany ash & Pradiptyo, rimawan, 2011. "A game theoretical analysis of economic sanction," MPRA Paper 30481, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Luciano Andreozzi, 2004. "Rewarding Policemen Increases Crime. Another Surprising Result from the Inspection Game," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(1), pages 69-82, October.
    10. John Brehm & Scott Gates, 1994. "When Supervision Fails to Induce Compliance," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 6(3), pages 323-343, July.
    11. Alfred Endres & Andreas Lüdeke, 1998. "Limited Liability and Imperfect Information—On the Existence of Safety Equilibria Under Products Liability Law," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 153-165, March.
    12. Christine Horne & Heiko Rauhut, "undated". "Using Laboratory Experiments to Study Law and Crime," Working Papers CCSS-10-010, ETH Zurich, Chair of Systems Design.
    13. Potters, Jan & van Winden, Frans, 1996. "Comparative Statics of a Signaling Game: An Experimental Study," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(3), pages 329-353.
    14. George Tsebelis, 1995. "Another Response to Gordon Tullock," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(1), pages 97-99, January.
    15. Manfred Holler, 1993. "Nash equilibrium reconsidered and an option for maximin," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 103-115, February.
    16. Heiko Rauhut, 2009. "Higher Punishment, Less Control?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 21(3), pages 359-392, August.
    17. George Tsebelis, 1991. "The Effect of Fines on Regulated Industries," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(1), pages 81-101, January.
    18. Arun Agrawal, 1997. "Shepherds and Their Leaders Among the Raikas of India," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(2), pages 235-263, April.
    19. Manfred J. Holler & Barbara Klose-Ullmann, 2008. "Wallenstein’s Power Problem and Its Consequences," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 2(3), pages 197-218, December.
    20. Christine Horne & Heiko Rauhut, 2013. "Using laboratory experiments to study law and crime," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 1639-1655, April.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:3:y:1991:i:3:p:343-350. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.