IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsm/riskun/r05_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Outcomes and Strategy Choices in Tullock Contests

Author

Listed:
  • Flavio Menezes

    (Australian National University)

  • John Quiggin

    (Department of Economics, University of Queensland)

Abstract

We explore the relationship between the choice of the strategy space and outcomes in Tullock contests. In particular, in a framework where one of the contest's participants moves first, we show that there is an equilibrium where this individual wins the contest with probability one. We also show that not only the nature of the outcome changes (e.g., who wins the contest) with the choice of the strategy space but also that a contest organiser might have preferences over this space. We argue that ultimately the analyst does not have complete freedom to choose the strategy space. Instead, he or she should consider the strategies that are permitted by the organisers of a formal contest, whose interests might lie in maximising returns. That is, the analyst's choice of the strategy space is not neutral.

Suggested Citation

  • Flavio Menezes & John Quiggin, 2005. "Outcomes and Strategy Choices in Tullock Contests," Risk & Uncertainty Working Papers WP6R05, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsm:riskun:r05_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.uq.edu.au/rsmg/WP/WPR05_6.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco A. Haan & Lambert Schoonbeek, 2003. "Rent Seeking with Efforts and Bids," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 215-235, July.
    2. Konrad, Kai A, 2000. "Sabotage in Rent-Seeking Contests," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 155-165, April.
    3. Grant, Simon & Quiggin, John, 1994. "Nash equilibrium with mark-up-pricing oligopolists," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 245-251, June.
    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. Flavio Menezes & John Quiggin, 2007. "Games without Rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(4), pages 315-347, December.
    2. Johan N. M. Lagerlöf, 2020. "Hybrid All-Pay and Winner-Pay Contests," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 144-169, November.
    3. de Roos, Nicolas & Matros, Alexander & Smirnov, Vladimir & Valencia, Zehra, 2022. "Choosing the Prize in Contests," Working Papers 2022-04, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
    4. Newbery, David M. & Greve, Thomas, 2017. "The strategic robustness of oligopoly electricity market models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 124-132.
    5. Kelemen, József, 2020. "Szimultán Hotelling-modell Cobb-Douglas-hasznosságfüggvénnyel [A simultaneous Hotelling model with a Cobb-Douglas utility function]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 14-30.
    6. J. Amegashie & Marco Runkel, 2007. "Sabotaging Potential Rivals," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(1), pages 143-162, January.
    7. Kräkel, Matthias, 2006. "Firm Size, Economic Situation and Influence Activities," IZA Discussion Papers 2391, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Gürtler, Oliver, 2005. "On Delegation under Relational Contracts," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 32/2005, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    9. Glenn Dutcher & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Dmitry Ryvkin, 2016. "Don't hate the player, hate the game: Uncovering the foundations of cheating in contests," Working Papers 2016-29, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    10. Jeffrey A. Flory & Andreas Leibbrandt & John A. List, 2016. "The Effects of Wage Contracts on Workplace Misbehaviors: Evidence from a Call Center Natural Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 22342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Münster, Johannes, 2006. "Selection Tournaments, Sabotage, and Participation," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 118, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    12. Gil Epstein & Ira Gang, 2007. "Who Is The Enemy?," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 469-484.
    13. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    14. Jean Marie Viaene & Laixun Zhao, 2009. "Tainted Food, Low-Quality Products and Trade," Discussion Paper Series 245, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    15. Castanheira, Micael & Huck, Steffen & Leutgeb, Johannes & Schotter, Andrew, 2023. "How Trump triumphed: Multi-candidate primaries with buffoons," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    16. Menezes, Flavio M. & Quiggin, John, 2010. "Markets for influence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 307-310, May.
    17. Bulut, Harun & Koray, Semih, 2008. "Competition and Regulation via Supply and Demand Functions in Oligopolistic-Oligopsonistic Markets," Working Papers 6136, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Amegashie, J. Atsu, 2019. "Quantity-cum-quality contests," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 289-297.
    19. Sakshi Gupta & Ram Singh, 2018. "On Existence and Properties of Pure-strategy Equilibria under Contests," Working Papers id:12840, eSocialSciences.
    20. Boone, Jan & Müller, Wieland, 2012. "The distribution of harm in price-fixing cases," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 265-276.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Strategy space; Tullock contests;

    JEL classification:

    • 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:rsm:riskun:r05_6. 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: David Adamson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rsmuqau.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.