IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/575.html

Nash’s interpretations of equilibrium: Solving the objections to Cournot

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge M. Streb

Abstract

A Nash equilibrium can also be seen as a Cournot-Nash equilibrium, though this is debated because Cournot provided a specific application, not a general formulation. In my view, another of Nash’s fundamental contributions stands out when contrasting him to Cournot. Cournot treated economic decisions as optimization problems, but his stability analysis of duopoly led to endless discussions because players did not use the available information. Nash solves this with his rational interpretation: when players know the structure of the game, they can use the solution to predict the equilibrium. He thus introduces rational expectations. Nash additionally offers an adaptive interpretation: when players do not know the structure of the game, they can adjust their strategies to maximize payoffs. These adaptive expectations were anticipated by Cournot in his analysis of monopoly. In brief, Nash was not only extraordinary as a mathematician; his deep insights allow solving decades-long debates in economics.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge M. Streb, 2015. "Nash’s interpretations of equilibrium: Solving the objections to Cournot," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 575, Universidad del CEMA.
    • Handle: RePEc:cem:doctra:575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ucema.edu.ar/publicaciones/download/documentos/575.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    2. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    3. Martin Shubik, 1952. "Information, Theories of Competition, and the Theory of Games," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 145-145.
    4. Robert J. Leonard, 1992. "Reading Cournot, Reading Nash / or / The Emergence and Stabilization of the Nash equilibrium," Cahiers de recherche du Département des sciences économiques, UQAM 9214, Université du Québec à Montréal, Département des sciences économiques.
    5. Leonard, Robert J, 1994. "Reading Cournot, Reading Nash: The Creation and Stabilisation of the Nash Equilibrium," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(424), pages 492-511, May.
    6. Roger B. Myerson, 1999. "Nash Equilibrium and the History of Economic Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1067-1082, September.
    7. Nicola Giocoli, 2003. "Modeling Rational Agents," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2585.
    8. Till Düppe & E. Roy Weintraub, 2014. "Finding Equilibrium: Arrow, Debreu, McKenzie and the Problem of Scientific Credit," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10206, December.
    9. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    10. van Damme, E.E.C. & Kühn, H. & Harsanyi, J. & Selten, R. & Weibull, J. & Nash Jr., J. & Hammerstein, P., 1996. "The work of John Nash in game theory," Other publications TiSEM f84995ec-5162-4438-8ca3-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    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. Jorge M. Streb, 2015. "Nash, el último fundador de la teoría de juegos, y la evolución del concepto de equilibrio desde Cournot," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 572, Universidad del CEMA.
    2. Benoît Lengaigne, 2004. "Nash : changement de programme ?," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 114(5), pages 637-662.
    3. Crawford, Vincent P., 2002. "John Nash and the analysis of strategic behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 377-382, May.
    4. Alessandro Innocenti, 2008. "Linking Strategic Interaction and Bargaining Theory: The Harsanyi-Schelling Debate on the Axiom of Symmetry," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 111-132, Spring.
    5. Nejat Anbarci & Nick Feltovich, 2013. "How sensitive are bargaining outcomes to changes in disagreement payoffs?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(4), pages 560-596, December.
    6. Federica Alberti & Sven Fischer & Werner Güth & Kei Tsutsui, 2018. "Concession Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(9), pages 2017-2039, October.
    7. Britz, Volker & Herings, P. Jean-Jacques & Predtetchinski, Arkadi, 2010. "Non-cooperative support for the asymmetric Nash bargaining solution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1951-1967, September.
    8. Güth, Werner, 1998. "Sequential versus independent commitment: An indirect evolutionary analysis of bargaining rules," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1998,5, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    9. Robert E. Goodin & Werner Güth & Duncan Snidal, 2005. "Strategic Aspects of Hegemony," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-29, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    10. Okada, Akira, 2010. "The Nash bargaining solution in general n-person cooperative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(6), pages 2356-2379, November.
    11. Hadi Charkhgard & Martin Savelsbergh & Masoud Talebian, 2018. "Nondominated Nash points: application of biobjective mixed integer programming," 4OR, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 151-171, June.
    12. Feltovich, Nick & Swierzbinski, Joe, 2011. "The role of strategic uncertainty in games: An experimental study of cheap talk and contracts in the Nash demand game," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 554-574, May.
    13. Ewa Roszkowska & Tom R. Burns, 2010. "Fuzzy Bargaining Games: Conditions of Agreement, Satisfaction, and Equilibrium," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 421-440, September.
    14. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2012. "Bargaining with random implementation: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 495-514.
    15. Binmore, Ken & Samuelson, Larry & Young, Peyton, 2003. "Equilibrium selection in bargaining models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 296-328, November.
    16. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    17. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2018. "How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 320-334.
    18. Jose Pedro Pontes & Telmo Peixe, 2021. "On The Roots Of Underdevelopment:“Wrong Equilibrium” Or “Miscoordination”?," Working Papers REM 2021/0187, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    19. Roger B. Myerson, 1999. "Nash Equilibrium and the History of Economic Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1067-1082, September.
    20. Kóczy Á., László, 2006. "A Neumann-féle játékelmélet [Neumanns game theory]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 31-45.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • B1 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought through 1925
    • B2 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925
    • B3 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought: Individuals
    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory

    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:cem:doctra:575. 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: Lucila Solla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cemaaar.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.