IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/njopap/v13y2020i2p249-272n14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Game Theory in Public Domains: The Potential and Limitations of Security Games

Author

Listed:
  • Špačková Zuzana

    (University of Defence in Brno, Czech Republic.)

  • Špaček David

    (Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University, Czech Republic.)

Abstract

Since its origins, when it was mainly connected to the field of economics, game theory has brought important theoretic insights into many domains. Besides biology, philosophy or computer science, its findings have been applied to various fields of public policy. One specific area of public policy is that of security. Within the last two decades we have been witnesses to a significant increase in efforts to model security issues using tools of game theory and to derive political implications. The paper deals with the model of a Stackelberg security game and its real-world applications in security domains. The main aim and purpose of the paper is to provide a survey of selected cases of real-world deployed applications of the game-theoretic Stackelberg model in the area of public security and, based on the literature analysis, to discuss the potential and limitations of the model for policy- and decision-makers that are dealing with security measures on various governmental levels. Existing cases clearly indicate that the model can contribute to a better design and implementation of the security policy and help implement a better allocation of resources and thus potentially improve the effectiveness of security measures. On the other hand, the paper also discusses some limitations and potential future adjustments of the model together with points for further research.

Suggested Citation

  • Špačková Zuzana & Špaček David, 2020. "Using Game Theory in Public Domains: The Potential and Limitations of Security Games," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 249-272, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:njopap:v:13:y:2020:i:2:p:249-272:n:14
    DOI: 10.2478/nispa-2020-0024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2020-0024
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/nispa-2020-0024?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. Powell, Robert, 2007. "Defending against Terrorist Attacks with Limited Resources," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 527-541, August.
    2. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    3. Thomas A. Birkland, 2009. "Disasters, Catastrophes, and Policy Failure in the Homeland Security Era1," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 26(4), pages 423-438, July.
    4. Susan E. Clarke & Erica Chenoweth, 2006. "The Politics of Vulnerability: Constructing Local Performance Regimes for Homeland Security," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 23(1), pages 95-114, January.
    5. Mikhael Shor, 2003. "Game Theory .net," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(4), pages 388-388, December.
    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. Subhasish Chowdhury & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2013. "An experimental investigation of Colonel Blotto games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(3), pages 833-861, April.
    2. Ulrich Hendel, 2016. "‘Look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under’t’: mimicking behaviour of growth-oriented terrorist organizations," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(5), pages 665-687, September.
    3. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2009. "Intelligence and impact contests in systems with redundancy, false targets, and partial protection," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(12), pages 1927-1941.
    4. Shan, Xiaojun & Zhuang, Jun, 2013. "Hybrid defensive resource allocations in the face of partially strategic attackers in a sequential defender–attacker game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 262-272.
    5. Lei Du & Yingbin Feng & Li Yaning Tang & Wei Kang & Wei Lu, 2020. "Networks in disaster emergency management: a systematic review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1-27, August.
    6. B. Golany & N. Goldberg & U. Rothblum, 2015. "Allocating multiple defensive resources in a zero-sum game setting," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 225(1), pages 91-109, February.
    7. Liang, Liang & Chen, Jingxian & Siqueira, Kevin, 2020. "Revenge or continued attack and defense in defender–attacker conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(3), pages 1180-1190.
    8. J. Michael Angstadt, 2020. "Applying Stone in a Western Landscape: Ranchers, Conservationists, and Causal Stories in the “American Serengeti”," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(2), pages 244-259, March.
    9. Hadi Yektaş & Magnus Hoffmann & Friedhelm Hentschel & Roland Hodler, 2019. "Wars of Conquest and Independence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 175(4), pages 617-640.
    10. Jun Zhuang & Vicki M. Bier, 2007. "Balancing Terrorism and Natural Disasters---Defensive Strategy with Endogenous Attacker Effort," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 976-991, October.
    11. Yang Jiao & Zijun Luo, 2019. "A model of terrorism and counterterrorism with location choices," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(3), pages 301-313, June.
    12. Zhou, Tim, 2015. "Failed bank auctions and externalities," MPRA Paper 65587, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Tiberiu Dragu & Mattias Polborn, 2009. "Terrorism Prevention and Electoral Accountability," CESifo Working Paper Series 2864, CESifo.
    14. Duffy, John & Matros, Alexander, 2017. "Stochastic asymmetric Blotto games: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 88-105.
    15. Edouard Kujawski, 2015. "Accounting for Terrorist Behavior in Allocating Defensive Counterterrorism Resources," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 365-376, July.
    16. Powell, Robert, 2009. "Sequential, nonzero-sum "Blotto": Allocating defensive resources prior to attack," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 611-615, November.
    17. Tamara Stotz & Angela Bearth & Signe Maria Ghelfi & Michael Siegrist, 2020. "Evaluating the Perceived Efficacy of Randomized Security Measures at Airports," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1469-1480, July.
    18. Bakker, Craig & Webster, Jennifer B. & Nowak, Kathleen E. & Chatterjee, Samrat & Perkins, Casey J. & Brigantic, Robert, 2020. "Multi-Game Modeling for Counter-Smuggling," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    19. John Duffy & Alexander Matros, 2013. "Stochastic Asymmetric Blotto Games: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Paper 509, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Nov 2013.
    20. Edouard Kujawski, 2016. "A Probabilistic Game‐Theoretic Method to Assess Deterrence and Defense Benefits of Security Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 549-566, November.

    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:vrs:njopap:v:13:y:2020:i:2:p:249-272:n:14. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.