IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/27653.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Leadership games with convex strategy sets

Author

Listed:
  • von Stengel, Bernhard
  • Zamir, Shmuel

Abstract

A basic model of commitment is to convert a two-player game in strategic form to a “leadership game” with the same payoffs, where one player, the leader, commits to a strategy, to which the second player always chooses a best reply. This paper studies such leadership games for games with convex strategy sets. We apply them to mixed extensions of finite games, which we analyze completely, including nongeneric games. The main result is that leadership is advantageous in the sense that, as a set, the leader's payoffs in equilibrium are at least as high as his Nash and correlated equilibrium payoffs in the simultaneous game. We also consider leadership games with three or more players, where most conclusions no longer hold.

Suggested Citation

  • von Stengel, Bernhard & Zamir, Shmuel, 2010. "Leadership games with convex strategy sets," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 27653, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:27653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27653/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Hamilton, Jonathan H. & Slutsky, Steven M., 1990. "Endogenous timing in duopoly games: Stackelberg or cournot equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 29-46, March.
    3. Reny, Philip J. & Robson, Arthur J., 2004. "Reinterpreting mixed strategy equilibria: a unification of the classical and Bayesian views," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 355-384, August.
    4. Von Stengel, Bernhard, 2002. "Computing equilibria for two-person games," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 45, pages 1723-1759, Elsevier.
    5. Amir, Rabah & Grilo, Isabel, 1999. "Stackelberg versus Cournot Equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Shapiro, Carl, 1989. "Theories of oligopoly behavior," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 329-414, Elsevier.
    7. Aumann, Robert J., 1974. "Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 67-96, March.
    8. Young, H. Peyton, 2004. "Strategic Learning and its Limits," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199269181.
    9. von Stengel, Bernhard & Koller, Daphne, 1997. "Team-Maxmin Equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 21(1-2), pages 309-321, October.
    10. Avenhaus, Rudolf & Von Stengel, Bernhard & Zamir, Shmuel, 2002. "Inspection games," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 51, pages 1947-1987, Elsevier.
    11. Amir Rabah, 1995. "Endogenous Timing in Two-Player Games: A Counterexample," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 234-237, May.
    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. Bernhard von Stengel, 2016. "Recursive Inspection Games," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(3), pages 935-952, August.
    2. Rabah Amir & Giuseppe Feo, 2014. "Endogenous timing in a mixed duopoly," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(3), pages 629-658, August.
    3. Balkenborg, Dieter & Hofbauer, Josef & Kuzmics, Christoph, 2013. "Refined best-response correspondence and dynamics," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(1), January.
    4. Kutay Cingiz & János Flesch & P. Jean-Jacques Herings & Arkadi Predtetchinski, 2020. "Perfect information games where each player acts only once," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(4), pages 965-985, June.
    5. Stefanos Leonardos & Costis Melolidakis, 2018. "On the Commitment Value and Commitment Optimal Strategies in Bimatrix Games," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-28, September.
    6. Marco Marini & Giorgio Rodano, 2012. "Sequential vs Collusive Payoffs in Symmetric Duopoly Games," DIAG Technical Reports 2012-06, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita' degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza".
    7. Yunjian Xu & Katrina Ligett, 2018. "Commitment in first-price auctions," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(2), pages 449-489, August.
    8. Nicola Basilico & Stefano Coniglio & Nicola Gatti & Alberto Marchesi, 2020. "Bilevel programming methods for computing single-leader-multi-follower equilibria in normal-form and polymatrix games," EURO Journal on Computational Optimization, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 8(1), pages 3-31, March.
    9. Edward JM Colbert & Alexander Kott & Lawrence P Knachel, 2020. "The game-theoretic model and experimental investigation of cyber wargaming," The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, , vol. 17(1), pages 21-38, January.

    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. Guth, Werner & Ritzberger, Klaus & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "On the Nash bargaining solution with noise," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 697-713, June.
    2. Nakamura, Yasuhiko, 2019. "Combining the endogenous choice of the timing of setting incentive parameters and the contents of strategic contracts in a managerial mixed duopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 207-233.
    3. Hoffmann, Magnus & Rota-Graziosi, Grégoire, 2012. "Endogenous timing in general rent-seeking and conflict models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 168-184.
    4. Chen, Jing & Chen, Bintong & Li, Wei, 2018. "Who should be pricing leader in the presence of customer returns?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 735-747.
    5. Madden, Paul & Pezzino, Mario, 2019. "Endogenous price leadership with an essential input," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 47-59.
    6. Amir, Rabah & Stepanova, Anna, 2006. "Second-mover advantage and price leadership in Bertrand duopoly," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 1-20, April.
    7. von Stengel, Bernhard, 2010. "Follower payoffs in symmetric duopoly games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 512-516, July.
    8. Sun, Chia-Hung, 2013. "Combining the endogenous choice of price/quantity and timing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 364-368.
    9. Marco Marini & Giorgio Rodano, 2011. "Lead, Follow or Cooperate? Endogenous Timing & Cooperation in Symmetric Duopoly Games," Working Papers 1112, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Economics, Society & Politics - Scientific Committee - L. Stefanini & G. Travaglini, revised 2011.
    10. Amir, Rabah, 2005. "Ordinal versus cardinal complementarity: The case of Cournot oligopoly," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-14, October.
    11. van Damme, E.E.C., 2015. "Game theory : Noncooperative games," Other publications TiSEM ff518f2b-501f-4d99-817b-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Chia-Hung Sun, 2020. "Simultaneous and sequential choice in a symmetric two-player game with canyon-shaped payoffs," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 191-219, April.
    13. Matsui, Kenji, 2020. "Optimal bargaining timing of a wholesale price for a manufacturer with a retailer in a dual-channel supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(1), pages 225-236.
    14. Ciwei Dong & Liu Yang & Chi To Ng, 2020. "Quantity Leadership for a Dual-Channel Supply Chain with Retail Service," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 37(02), pages 1-32, March.
    15. Konstantinos Georgalos & Indrajit Ray & Sonali SenGupta, 2020. "Nash versus coarse correlation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1178-1204, December.
    16. Viossat, Yannick, 2008. "Evolutionary dynamics may eliminate all strategies used in correlated equilibrium," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 27-43, July.
    17. Rabah Amir & Giuseppe Feo, 2014. "Endogenous timing in a mixed duopoly," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(3), pages 629-658, August.
    18. Luciano Fanti, 2017. "An Observable Delay Game with Unionised Managerial Firms," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 64(1), pages 50-69, February.
    19. L. Lambertini, 1997. "Time Consistency in Games of Timing," Working Papers 302, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    20. Miettinen, Topi & Perea, Andrés, 2015. "Commitment in alternating offers bargaining," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 12-18.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Commitment; Correlated equilibrium; First-mover advantage; Follower; Leader; Stackelberg game; ISI;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    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:ehl:lserod:27653. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.