IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/huj/dispap/dp465.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Distribution of Resources in a Competitive Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Judith Avrahami
  • Yaakov Kareev

Abstract

When two agents of unequal strength compete, the stronger one is expected to always win the competition. This expectation is based on the assumption that evaluation of performance is flawless. If, however, the agents are evaluated on the basis of only a small sample of their performance, the weaker agent still stands a chance of winning occasionally. A theoretical analysis indicates that for this to happen, the weaker agent must introduce variability into the effort he or she invests in the behavior, such that on some occasions the weaker agent's level of performance is as high as that of the stronger agent, whereas on others it is null. This, in turn, would drive the stronger agent to introduce variability into his or her behavior. We model this situation in a game, present its game-theoretic solution, and report an experiment, involving 144 individuals, in which we tested whether players are actually sensitive to their relative strengths and know how to allocate their resources given those relative strengths. Our results indicate that they do.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith Avrahami & Yaakov Kareev, 2007. "Distribution of Resources in a Competitive Environment," Discussion Paper Series dp465, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    • Handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp465
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ratio.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/publications/dp465.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sergiu Hart, 2008. "Discrete Colonel Blotto and General Lotto games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 36(3), pages 441-460, March.
    2. Judith Avrahami & Werner Güth & Yaakov Kareev & Tobias Uske, 2007. "On the Incentive Effects of Uncertainty in Monitoring Agents - A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis," Jena Economics Research Papers 2007-093, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    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. Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami, 2007. "Distribution of Resources in a Competitive Environment," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000001610, UCLA Department of Economics.
    2. Kjell Hausken, 2023. "Two-period Colonel Blotto contest with cumulative investments over variable assets with resource constraints," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(11), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    4. Koessler, Frederic & Laclau, Marie & Renault, Jérôme & Tomala, Tristan, 2022. "Long information design," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(2), May.
    5. Aner Sela, 2021. "Resource Allocations In Multi-Stage Contests," Working Papers 2105, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    6. Aner Sela, 2023. "Resource allocations in the best-of-k ( $$k=2,3$$ k = 2 , 3 ) contests," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 235-260, August.
    7. Pálvölgyi, Dénes & Peters, Hans & Vermeulen, Dries, 2014. "A strategic approach to multiple estate division problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 135-152.
    8. 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.
    9. Sanjeev Goyal & Adrien Vigier, 2014. "Attack, Defence, and Contagion in Networks," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1518-1542.
    10. Shakun D. Mago & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2017. "Multi‐battle Contests: An Experimental Study," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(2), pages 407-425, October.
    11. Nadav Amir, 2015. "Uniqueness of optimal strategies in captain lotto games," Discussion Paper Series dp687, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    12. Casella, Alessandra & Laslier, Jean-François & Macé, Antonin, 2017. "Democracy for Polarized Committees: The Tale of Blotto's Lieutenants," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 239-259.
    13. Boyer, Pierre C. & Konrad, Kai A. & Roberson, Brian, 2017. "Targeted campaign competition, loyal voters, and supermajorities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 49-62.
    14. Aner Sela, 2016. "Two Stage Contests With Effort-Dependent Rewards," Working Papers 1612, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    15. Alan Washburn, 2013. "OR Forum---Blotto Politics," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 532-543, June.
    16. Daniel G. Arce & Dan Kovenock J. & Brian Roberson, 2009. "Suicide Terrorism and the Weakest Link," CESifo Working Paper Series 2753, CESifo.
    17. Deck, Cary & Hao, Li & Porter, David, 2015. "Do prediction markets aid defenders in a weak-link contest?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 248-258.
    18. Irit Nowik & Tahl Nowik, 2017. "Games with Costly Winnings," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(04), pages 1-9, December.
    19. Dan Kovenock & Brian Roberson & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2019. "The attack and defense of weakest-link networks," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(3), pages 175-194, June.
    20. Paulo Barelli & Srihari Govindan & Robert Wilson, 2014. "Competition for a Majority," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(1), pages 271-314, January.

    More about this item

    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:huj:dispap:dp465. 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: Michael Simkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crihuil.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.