Managing Asymmetric Conflict
We consider conflicts between an incumbent, e.g. government or dominant firm, and potential challengers, e.g. guerilla movement or entrants. It is not uncommon for challengers to win such conflicts despite their lack of resources. They can do this by exploiting a second mover advantage: choosing to attack the incumbent in ways that it had not prepared for, because it was locked in by past investments. To model such asymmetric conflict we use a three stage game. In the first stage the incumbent chooses effort; in the second stage the challengers choose the degree of differentiation from the incumbent and in the third stage each decide whether to attack or defend and collect their payoffs. This simple model has a number of interesting predicitions, which may apply in certain types of legal, commercial and military conflicts.
|Date of creation:||Oct 2004|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: School of Economics, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP|
Phone: +44 (0)1227 827497
Web page: http://www.kent.ac.uk/economics/
|Order Information:|| Email: |
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bresnahan, Timothy F & Greenstein, Shane, 1999.
"Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry,"
Journal of Industrial Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 1-40, March.
- Timothy F. Bresnahan & Shane Greenstein, 1997. "Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry," Working Papers 97028, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- Ralph Rotte & Christoph Schmidt, 2003. "On the production of victory: Empirical determinants of battlefield success in modern war," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 175-192.
- Rotte, Ralph & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2002. "On the Production of Victory: Empirical Determinants of Battlefield Success in Modern War," IZA Discussion Papers 491, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- John Sutton, 2001. "Technology and Market Structure: Theory and History," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262692643, July.
- Grossman, Herschel I & Kim, Minseong, 1995. "Swords or Plowshares? A Theory of the Security of Claims to Property," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(6), pages 1275-1288, December.
- Sandler, Todd & Enders, Walter, 2004. "An economic perspective on transnational terrorism," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 301-316, June.
- Intriligator, Michael D, 1975. "Strategic Considerations in the Richardson Model of Arms Races," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(2), pages 339-353, April.
- Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger, "undated". "How to Fight Terrorism: Alternatives to Deterrence," IEW - Working Papers 137, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Hirshleifer,Jack, 2001. "The Dark Side of the Force," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521804127, Diciembre.
- Hirshleifer,Jack, 2001. "The Dark Side of the Force," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521009171.
- Jack Hirshleifer, 1993. "The Dark Side of the Force," UCLA Economics Working Papers 702, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Grossman, Herschel I, 1991. "A General Equilibrium Model of Insurrections," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 912-921, September.
- Collier, Paul & Hoeffler, Anke, 1998. "On Economic Causes of Civil War," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 563-573, October.
- Lapan, Harvey E. & Sandler, Todd, 1993. "Terrorism and signalling," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 383-397, August.