EBK MICROECONOMICS
2nd Edition
ISBN: 8220103679701
Author: List
Publisher: YUZU
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 13, Problem 12Q
To determine
Factors that can cause a socially efficient outcome to occur in a sequential version of the “Prisoner’s dilemma”.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionStudents have asked these similar questions
Common pool resource game) Consider a common pool resource game with two appropriators. (If you don’t know what is a common pool resource, read the Wikipedia article about the ”Tragedy of the Commons”.) Each appropriator has an endowment e > 0 that can be invested in an outside activity with marginal payoff c > 0 or into the common pool resource. Let x ∈ X ⊆ [0, e] denote the player’s investment into the common pool resource (likewise, y denotes the opponent’s investment). The return from investment into the common pool resource is x x+y · ((x + y) − (x + y) 2 ). So the symmetric payoff function is given by π(x, y) = c · (e − x) + x x+y · ((x + y) − (x + y) 2 ) if x > 0 and c · e otherwise. Assume 1 − e < c < 1. Find Nash equilibrium of the game. Proceed by deriving the best response correspondences first. How does Nash equilibrium depend on parameters c and e (varying one at a time and keeping the others fixed)?
There is a city, which looks like chopped isosceles triangle, as shown below. Citizens live uniformly distributed all over the city. Two ice-cream vendors, A and B, must independently set up stores in the city. Each citizen buys from the vendor closest to their location and when equidistant from both vendors they choose by coin toss. Each vendor’s aim is to maximize the expected number of customers. A choice of location by the two vendors is a Nash equilibrium if no vendor can do better by deviating unilaterally. Does this game have a Nash equilibrium? If so, describe it. If not, explain why not
In this version of the ultimatum game experiment, one participant is given £100, and is told to offer to split that amount with another participant. The second player can either refuse to accept the division, in which case the participant receiving the £100 has to give it back, or can accept the division, in which case, the player receiving the money splits the £100 as proposed.
For the participant who has to accept or reject the offer
A) The best strategy is to accept any offer which meets the social norm for fairness.
B) The best strategy is to threaten to turn down any transfer of less than £100 to ensure that the person receiving the money makes a fair offer.
C) There is a dominant strategy to accept any offer because gaining some money is better than gaining no money
D) There is a dominant strategy to turn down any offer other than £50 because an unequal split would be unfair.
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- A Nash Equilibrium is the equilibrium of a game in which; Both players get the largest payoff amount Both players get the best payoff independent of what the other players choices are Both player, with the knowledge of what the other players possible moves are, do not have incentive to deviate from their strategy There is incomplete information of the game and each player makes the move that is best for them and their payoff outcomearrow_forwardA strategy that a player will pursue regardless of any other player's decision is called _________. Question 10 options: game theory. collusion. prisoner's dilemma. dominant strategy.arrow_forwardIn the following 3-player game, the payoffs represent the number of years in jail. The equilibrium is ________ Group of answer choices Eric and Ned denies. Eric and Tim confess, but Ned denies. Eric confesses, Ned and Tim deny. Eric and Time deny, but Ned confessesarrow_forward
- What is a prisoners' dilemma? a game that involves no dominant strategies a game in which prisoners are stumped because they cannot communicate with each other a game in which players act in rational, self-interested ways that leave everyone worse off a game in which players collude to outfox authoritiesarrow_forwardEvolutionary game theory provides a framework for understanding the emergence of preferences and behavior. Why are theoretical methodologies that employ the rational actor model an evolutionary stable strategy for economists?arrow_forwardAlice chooses action a or action b, and her choice is observed by Bob. If Alice chooses action a, then Alice receives a payoff of 5 and Bob receives a payoff of 4. If Alice chooses action b, then Bob chooses action c or action d. If Bob chooses action c, then Alice receives a payoff of 10 and Bob receives a payoff of 5. If Bob chooses action d, then Alice receives a payoff of 0 and Bob receives a payoff of 6. Which of the following are correct statements about the game described in the previous paragraph? (Mark all that are correct.) Alice's backward induction payoff is 10. This is a prisoners' dilemma. This game has imperfect information. Alice's backward induction payoff is 0. This is a promise game. Bob's backward induction payoff is 4. Bob's backward induction payoff is 6. This is a threat game.arrow_forward
- Demonstrate the concept of coordination failure by using the payoff matrix and prove that, Coordination failure among economic agents can lead to an inefficient outcome while the opposite can guide to an efficient outcome. Use any hypothetical scenario to justify your analysis.arrow_forwardTwo athletes of equal ability are competing for a prize of $10,000. Each is deciding whether to take a dangerous performance enhancing drug. If one athlete takes the drug, and the other does not, the one who takes the drug wins the prize. If both or neither take the drug, they tie and split the prize. Taking the drug imposes health risks that are equivalent to a loss of X dollars. a) Draw a 2×2 payoff matrix describing the decisions the athletes face. b) For what X is taking the drug the Nash equilibrium? c) Does making the drug safer (that is, lowering X) make the athletes better or worse off? Explain.arrow_forwardTwo firms are competing to establish one of two new wireless communication standards, A or B. A strategy is a choice of standard, and an outcome of this game is a choice of standard by each firm – for example, (A, B) represents the case where Firm 1 decides to develop standard A and Firm 2 develops standard B. Here, the first letter will always correspond to Firm 1’s decision, and the second letter to Firm 2’s decision. Firm 1 has the following preferences over outcomes, in order of highest to lowest preferred: it prefers (A, A) to (B, A) to (A, B) to (B, B). Firm 2 prefers (A, B) to (A, A) to (B, A) to (B, B). Suppose that firms simultaneously decide which standard to develop. What is the pure strategy Nash equilibrium?arrow_forward
- Two firms are competing to establish one of two new wireless communication standards, A or B. A strategy is a choice of standard, and an outcome of this game is a choice of standard by each firm – for example, (A, B) represents the case where Firm 1 decides to develop standard A and Firm 2 develops standard B. Here, the first letter will always correspond to Firm 1’s decision, and the second letter to Firm 2’s decision. Firm 1 has the following preferences over outcomes, in order of highest to lowest preferred: it prefers (A, A) to (B, A) to (A, B) to (B, B). Firm 2 prefers (A, B) to (A, A) to (B, A) to (B, B). Suppose that firms simultaneously decide which standard to develop. What is the pure strategy Nash equilibrium? Is the answer (B,B)? If not please explian what is the answer?arrow_forwardConsider the following game played by four individuals, players 1, 2, 3, and 4. Each individual has $10,000. Each player can donate between $0 and $10,000 to build a public park that costs $20,000. If they collect enough money, they construct the park, which is worth $9,000 to each of them. However, if they collect less than $20,000, they cannot build a park. Furthermore, regardless of whether the park is built or not, individuals lose any donations that they make. a) Describe the Nash equilibria for a simultaneous game. What makes them equilibria? Hint: There are many equilibria, so you may want to use a mathematical expression! b) Suppose that players 1, 2, and 3, each donate $4,000 for the park. How much will player 4 donate and why. What are the resulting payoffs for the players? c) Suppose instead that player 1 donated first, player 2 second, player 3 third, and player 4 last. Furthermore, players could only donate in intervals of 1,000 (0, $1,000, $2,000, etc.). How much will…arrow_forwardWhich of the following is FALSE for the grim trigger strategy and the infinite horizon repeated Prisoner's Dilemma game illustrated above? A. In the grim trigger strategy profile, if a player chooses D in a period, then both players chooses D forever after that period B. The threshold discount factor for sustaining cooperation under grim trigger strategy depends on the utility numbers in the stage game C. If all utility numbers remain the same but 3 is replaced by 5 in the stage game, then cooperation CANNOT be sustained in this game for all possible values of the discount factor.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
- Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher:Cengage LearningManagerial Economics: Applications, Strategies an...EconomicsISBN:9781305506381Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. HarrisPublisher:Cengage Learning
- Exploring EconomicsEconomicsISBN:9781544336329Author:Robert L. SextonPublisher:SAGE Publications, Inc
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving Approach
Economics
ISBN:9781337106665
Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike Shor
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: Applications, Strategies an...
Economics
ISBN:9781305506381
Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. Harris
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Exploring Economics
Economics
ISBN:9781544336329
Author:Robert L. Sexton
Publisher:SAGE Publications, Inc