1 / 12

OLIGOPOLY AND GAME THEORY

OLIGOPOLY AND GAME THEORY. Phillip J Bryson Marriott School, BYU. Introduction. Game Theory pioneered at Princeton John von Neumann (mathematician/physicist) and Oscar Morgenstern (Austrian economist) Initial promise, later disappointment, and revival. The Payoff Matrix.

warren
Télécharger la présentation

OLIGOPOLY AND GAME THEORY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. OLIGOPOLY AND GAME THEORY Phillip J Bryson Marriott School, BYU

  2. Introduction • Game Theory pioneered at Princeton • John von Neumann (mathematician/physicist) and Oscar Morgenstern (Austrian economist) • Initial promise, later disappointment, and revival

  3. The Payoff Matrix. • Shows outcomes resulting from different possible decisions • Probabilities can be attached to the outcomes.

  4. The Payoff Matrix. • Consider the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Al and Benito, partners in crime, may have to strategize against each other after they have been apprehended. Each has a payoff matrix. • Separated (so they can’t communicate), each must decide whether to confess.

  5. Payoff matrices illustrated: Al’s • Outcomes: • five years each if both confess. • three years each if both consistently deny • one year for turning state’s evidence and convicting the other for 10 years. A Confess Not confess Confess 5 10 B Not confess 1 3 • Al’s dominant strategy is to confess!

  6. Payoff matrices illustrated:Benito’s • Outcomes: • five years each if both confess. • three years each if both consistently deny • one year for turning state’s evidence and convicting the other for 10 years. A Confess Not confess Confess 5 1 B Not confess 10 3 • This is a mirror of Al’s payoff matrix. Benito’s dominant strategy is also to confess.

  7. Game Outcomes • Dominant Strategy. This is the one superior to any alternative strategy, regardless of what the opponent does. If each player has a dominant strategy, the game has a dominant strategy equilibrium.

  8. Game Outcomes • Nash Equilibrium. Each player chooses the best strategy given the other’s behavior, when there’s no dominant strategy. • Note the excellent movie, “A Beautiful Mind,” which presents an entertaining version of the life of John Nash. Interestingly, in the movie, Nash seems to accommodate in such a way to the dilemma he is in that he reaches a Nash Equilibrium.

  9. Game Outcomes • In the prisoner’s dilemma game here, the dominant strategy makes each player worse off. The prisoners could both have been better off if they had adopted a cooperative strategy. The ability to communicate about joint implications can be important in a one-shot game. Here, the dominant strategy must, unfortunately for A & B, be played out.

  10. Application: Excessive Advertising • In oligopoly markets, the strategy game is repeated so firms have the opportunity to learn from past experience. Here, however, we again play a one-shot prisoner’s dilemma game. • Assume Firms 1 and 2 competing for market share and profit, both hoping to expand sales by advertising. Payoff Matrix Firm 1 Low expends High expends Firm 2 Low expends 1=100 1=150 (2=100) (2=60) High expends 1 =60 1=80 (2 = 150) (2=80)

  11. Excessive Advertising: Outcomes • In this non-cooperative game, achieving a dominant strategy gives 80 units of profit for each competitor. Here, both have refused to lose the market to the opponent’s aggressive advertising instincts. Firm 1 Low expends High expends Firm 2 Low expends 1=100 1=150 (2=100) (2=60) High expends 1 =60 1=80 (2 = 150) (2=80)

  12. Excessive Advertising: Outcomes • Cooperation would have provided a better outcome, however, with both firms saving the advertising costs. • Note that with low expenditures being agreed upon, each would earn 100 units of profit. • With the higher expenditures, each firm received only 80 units of profit. Firm 1 Low expends High expends Firm 2 Low expends 1=100 1=150 (2=100) (2=60) High expends 1 =60 1=80 (2 = 150) (2=80)

More Related