NONCOOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE NORTHEAST ATLANTIC COD FISHERY: A FIRST MOVER ADVANTAGE

The point of departure for this analysis is Bjørndal and Lindroos [2012], who developed an empirical bioeconomic model to analyze cooperative and noncooperative management of Northeast Atlantic cod. In their analysis, only constant strategies were analyzed for noncooperative games. In this paper, nonconstant strategies are considered. Moreover, the fishery in question is characterized by cooperative management. What may happen in the real world is that one nation breaks the cooperative agreement by fishing in excess of its quota. Often, it takes time for the other agent to detect this and respond. In this paper, we allow this kind of delayed response into a two‐agent noncooperative game so that, if country 2 exceeds its quota, there will be a time lag before this is detected by country 1; moreover, there may also be a delay until country 1 is able to respond. Results show that the outcome critically depends on the length of these two lags as well as initial conditions.     

Two noncooperative games between a coalition and its surrounding in a class of n-person games with constant sum

A cooperative game engendered by a noncooperative n-person game (the master game) in which any subset of n players may form a coalition playing an antagonistic game against the residual players (the surrounding) that has a (Nash equilibrium) solution, is considered, along with another noncooperative game in which both a coalition and its surrounding try to maximize their gains that also possesses a Nash equilibrium solution. It is shown that if the master game is the one with constant sum, the sets of Nash equilibrium strategies in both above-mentioned noncooperative games (in which a coalition plays with (against) its surrounding) coincide.     

COMPARING PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE MANAGEMENT: MANAGING A TRANSBOUNDARY FISH STOCK UNDER CHANGING ENVIRONMENT

Environmental change in general, and climate change in particular, can lead to changes in distribution of fish stocks. When such changes involve transboundary fish stocks, the countries sharing the stock need to reconsider their harvesting policies. We investigate the effects of changing stock distribution on the optimal fishing policies in a two players’ noncooperative game. We compare reactive management, under which the manager ignores future distributional shifts (knowingly or unknowingly), with proactive management where the manager considers such shifts in his decisions. A dynamic programming model is developed to identify closed‐loop Nash strategies. We show that the role of two players is symmetric under reactive management but asymmetric under proactive management where managers anticipate future changes in stock ownership. The player losing the stock tends to harvest more aggressively compared to the player gaining the stock who acts more conservatively. Strategic interactions show tendency for complementary actions that can change abruptly during the ownership transition. The differences between management regimes vary from quantitative to qualitative; differences are minimal for stocks with little or no schooling, whereas highly schooling stocks may avoid collapse only under proactive management.     

A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria

A class of noncooperative games (of interest in certain applications) is described. Each game in the class is shown to possess at least one Nash equilibrium in pure strategies.     

Cores in noncooperative games

Noncooperative games in normal form and in characteristic function form are considered. The supergame of the noncooperative game is defined as an infinite sequence of plays of the original game. The notions of strong Pareto equilibrium point (s.p.e.p.) and essential core are introduced. A relationship between the essential core of a noncooperative game and the set of s.p.e.p. of its supergame is asserted. This result is similar to that ofAumann for cooperative games without side payments.     

Cooperative games of choosing partners and forming coalitions in the marketplace

Two games of interacting between a coalition of players in a marketplace and the residual players acting there are discussed, along with two approaches to fair imputation of gains of coalitions in cooperative games that are based on the concepts of the Shapley vector and core of a cooperative game. In the first game, which is an antagonistic one, the residual players try to minimize the coalition's gain, whereas in the second game, which is a noncooperative one, they try to maximize their own gain as a coalition. A meaningful interpretation of possible relations between gains and Nash equilibrium strategies in both games considered as those played between a coalition of firms and its surrounding in a particular marketplace in the framework of two classes of n-person games is presented. A particular class of games of choosing partners and forming coalitions in which models of firms operating in the marketplace are those with linear constraints and utility functions being sums of linear and bilinear functions of two corresponding vector arguments is analyzed, and a set of maximin problems on polyhedral sets of connected strategies which the problem of choosing a coalition for a particular firm is reducible to are formulated based on the firm models of the considered kind.     

A game theoretic model for two types of customers competing for service

Two types of customers arrive at a single server station and demand service. If a customer finds the server busy upon arrival (or retrial) he immediately departs and conducts a retrial after an exponential period of time and persists this way until he gets served. Both types of customers face linear costs for waiting and conducting retrials and wish to find optimal retrial rates which will minimize these costs. This problem is analysed as a two-person nonzero sum game. Both noncooperative strategies are studied.     

Bargaining on whales: A differential game model with pareto optimal equilibria

A two-country differential game model of whaling is used for analysing a dynamic bargaining problem. At a given initial time, the two countries may either continue on a noncooperative mood of play characterized by an open-loop Nash-equilibrium, or negotiate a bargaining solution which we define as the Kalaï-Smorodinsky solution. The cooperative solution calls for a restraint in the whaling efforts which leaves a temptation to cheat for any player. The model shows how, by announcing a credible threat, namely to make whaling an ‘open-access’ fishery, a country can eliminate this temptation to cheat and transform the cooperative solution into an equilibrium.     

Differential games results for military expenditures of unequal antagonists in the third world

In developing countries, resources are scarce and military expenditure can hinder development. Thus, allocation of resources between defense and civilian sectors is an important decision. Also, in developing countries, most defense spending is related to regional conflicts where one frequently encounters unequal participants (e.g., India—Pakistan, Iran—Iraq, China—Vietnam). In such situations, the bigger power aspires to be the regional leader, and allocates resources to the defense sector accordingly.

A model incorporating the two above mentioned stylized facts has been examined by Deger and Sen [1] in two different ways. They first look at the problem from a single country's point of view, which takes the other's reaction function as given, and show that in the long run, military expenditures and armament stock levels will exhibit stability. Next, they formulate the problem as a noncooperative differential game in which each country assumes knowledge of the other country's welfare function, and conjecture that stability will once again be exhibited. The present paper attempts to verify that conjecture using a simplifying assumption which is necessary to be able to qualitatively solve the problem. This simplifying assumption does not change the results for the optimal control models, however, the conjecture is not valid for the simplified differential game model.     

Can international environmental cooperation be bought?

In this paper a two-stage game of international environmental agreement formation with asymmetric countries is analytically solved. The equilibrium of the game makes it possible to determine the size and composition of a stable agreement. Two cases are studied. In the first case, countries differ only in abatement costs, while in the second case, they differ in environmental damages. In both cases, two different institutional settings, one without transfers and another with transfers, are considered. The results establish that the asymmetry assumption has no important effects on the scope of cooperation in comparison with the symmetric case if transfers are not used or abatement costs represent the only difference among countries. However, when the only difference is in environmental damages, the level of cooperation that can be bought through a self-financed transfer scheme increases with the degree of asymmetry.     

惩罚框架下求解广义Nash均衡问题的分解算法

广义Nash均衡问题(GNEP),是非合作博弈论中一类重要的问题,它在经济学、管理科学和交通规划等领域有着广泛的应用.本文主要提出一种新的惩罚算法来求解一般的广义Nash均衡问题,并根据罚函数的特殊结构,采用交替方向法求解子问题.在一定的条件下,本文证明新算法的全局收敛性.多个数值例子的试验结果表明算法是可行的,并且是有效的.     

A two-person non-zero-sum game model of the world oil market

The world oil market is modelled as a two-person non-zero-sum game in normal form with each player having a continuum of strategies. The two players are the oil importing nations (OPIC) and the oil exporting nations (OPEC). The game is solved in the noncooperative sense using the equilibrium point solution concept due to Nash. The Nash equilibrium point solution yields an analytic expression for the optimal price per barrel of oil for OPEC and the optimal level of imports of oil for OPIC assuming noncooperation between the players. The cooperative solution to the game is also investigated using the von Neumann-Morgenstern negotiation set solution and Nash's bargaining point solution. Again, we give analytic expressions for the optimal price of a barrel of oil and the optimal level of imports of oil assuming that the players cooperate (negotiate, bargain, etc., for a binding agreement) in arriving at a solution.     

PLANNING MARINE PROTECTED AREAS: A MULTIPLE USE GAME

Abstract The EU Marine Strategy Directive (MSD) has a regional focus in its implementation. The directive obliges countries to take multiple uses and the marine strategies of neighboring countries into account when formulating marine strategies and when designating marine protected areas (MPAs). We use game theoretical analysis both to find the optimal size of MPAs with multiple uses by multiple countries and to investigate the influences of multiple uses on cooperation. To this end, we develop a model in which two specific uses, fisheries and nature conservation, by multiple countries are considered in a strategic framework. The results of the paper suggest that EU marine policy such as the MSD and the coming Maritime Policy may help to secure the highest possible benefits from these MPAs if these policies induce cooperation among countries, but only if policies force countries to consider all possible benefits of MPAs. In fact cooperation on a single issue may give a worse outcome than the noncooperative equilibrium. The results also indicate that cooperation may be hard to achieve because of defector incentives, and therefore policy measures should be strict in enforcing cooperation on all possible uses of MPAs.     

A solution for noncooperative games

In this paper, we study solutions of strict noncooperative games that are played just once. The players are not allowed to communicate with each other. The main ingredient of our theory is the concept of rationalizing a set of strategies for each player of a game. We state an axiom based on this concept that every solution of a noncooperative game is required to satisfy. Strong Nash solvability is shown to be a sufficient condition for the rationalizing set to exist, but it is not necessary. Also, Nash solvability is neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of the rationalizing set of a game. For a game with no solution (in our sense), a player is assumed to recourse to a standard of behavior. Some standards of behavior are examined and discussed.This work was sponsored by the United States Army under Contract No. DAAG29-75-C-0024 and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. MCS-75-17385-A01. The author is grateful to J. C. Harsanyi for his comments and to S. M. Robinson for suggesting the problem.     

A Strong Equilibrium in Noncooperative Games

A new concept of game equilibrium is proposed, which makes it possible to find a unique solution in a wide class of noncooperative games in pure strategies. Its place in the hierarchical sequence of previously known equilibria is defined. Examples of static and differential games are used to demonstrate the procedure that finds this new equilibrium.     

基于累积前景理论的联盟企业知识转移演化博弈分析

知识转移过程是一个复杂的博弈过程,演化博弈论可以很好地解释转移主体行为。考虑到传统的演化博弈模型不能对知识转移主体非理性心理因素及风险偏好问题进行有效解释,本文将累积前景理论与演化博弈相结合,运用前景价值函数完善支付矩阵的部分参数,分析博弈模型的演化稳定策略。通过仿真模拟得出如下结论:知识转移存在两个演化稳定策略;转移策略由直接收益、转移成本及前景损益等因素决定;转移方的风险损失对转移策略影响较大,而接收方潜在收入对知识转移策略影响较小。     

A single-shot game of multi-period inspection

This paper deals with an inspection game of Customs and a smuggler during some days. Customs has two options of patrolling or not. The smuggler can take two strategies of shipping its cargo of contraband or not. Two players have several opportunities to take an action during a limited number of days but they may discard some of the opportunities. When the smuggling coincides with the patrol, there occurs one of three events: the capture of the smuggler by Customs, a success of the smuggling and nothing new. If the smuggler is captured or no time remains to complete the game, the game ends. There have been many studies on the inspection game so far by the multi-stage game model, where both players at a stage know players’ strategies taken at the previous stage. In this paper, we consider a two-person zero-sum single-shot game, where the game proceeds through multiple periods but both players do not know any strategies taken by their opponents on the process of the game. We apply dynamic programming to the game to exhaust all equilibrium points on a strategy space of player. We also clarify the characteristics of optimal strategies of players by some numerical examples.     

Co-op advertising models in manufacturer–retailer supply chains: A game theory approach

In the literature of cooperative (co-op) advertising, the focus of research is on a relationship in which a manufacturer is the leader and retailers are followers. This relationship implies the dominance of the manufacturer over retailers. Recent market structure reviews have shown a shift of retailing power from manufacturers to retailers. Retailers have equal or even greater power than a manufacturer when it comes to retailing. Based on this new market phenomenon, we intend to explore the role of vertical co-op advertising efficiency with respect to transactions between a manufacturer and a retailer through brand name investments, local advertising expenditures, and sharing rules of advertising expenses. Three co-op advertising models are discussed which are based on two noncooperative games and one cooperative game. In a leader–follower noncooperative game, the manufacturer is assumed to be a leader who first specifies the brand name investment and the co-op subsidization policy. The retailer, as a follower, then decides on the local advertising level. In a noncooperative simultaneous move game, the manufacturer and the retailer are assumed to act simultaneously and independently. In a cooperative game, the system profit is maximized for every Pareto efficient co-op advertising scheme, but not for any other schemes. All Pareto efficient co-op advertising schemes are associated with a single local advertising level and a single brand name investment level, but with variable sharing policies of advertising expenses. The best Pareto efficient advertising scheme is obtained taking members' risk attitudes into account. Utilizing the Nash bargaining model, we discuss two situations that (a) both members are risk averse, and (b) both members are risk neutral. Our results are consistent with the bargaining literature.     

Equilibria of the Games in Choice Form

Equilibrium in choice is a solution-concept for noncooperative games defined in a general framework??the game in choice form. There are two leading ideas of the new definition. One is that the players?? preferences need not be explicitly represented, but earlier accepted solution concepts should be formally derived as particular cases. Secondly, the choice of a player need not be a best reply to the strategy combination of the others, if the choices of the other players are motivated for themselves and a best reply does not exist. It is shown that in the present framework are included classical models of game theory, and the new concept extends various known noncooperative solutions. The main technical results of the paper concern the existence of the equilibrium in choice. As particular cases, known results on the existence of classical solutions are found. Thus, our approach can be also seen as a general method for proving the existence of different solutions for noncooperative games.