Agenda Setting: An agenda-setting game is described as follows. The “issue space" (set of possible policies) is an interval X = [0, 5]. An agenda setter (player 1) proposes an alternative x e X against the status quo q = 4. After player 1 proposes x, the legislator (player 2) observes the proposal and selects between the proposal x and the status quo q. Player l's most-preferred policy is 1, and for any final policy y e X his payoff is given by vy(y) = 10 – ly – 1. where [y – 1| denotes the absolute value of (y – 1). Player 2's most preferred policy is 3, and for any final policy y e X his payoff is given by vz(y) = 10 – ly – 31. That is, each player prefers policies that are closer to his most-preferred policy. a. Write the game down as a normal-form game. Is this a game of perfect or imperfect information? b. Find a subgame-perfect equilibrium for this game. Is it unique? c. Find a Nash equilibrium that is not subgame perfect. Is it unique? If yes, explain. If not, show all the Nash equilibria for this game.

Agenda Setting: An agenda-setting game is described as follows. The “issue space" (set of possible policies) is an interval X = [0, 5]. An agenda setter (player 1) proposes an alternative x e X against the status quo q = 4. After player 1 proposes x, the legislator (player 2) observes the proposal and selects between the proposal x and the status quo q. Player l's most-preferred policy is 1, and for any final policy y e X his payoff is given by vy(y) = 10 – ly – 1. where [y – 1| denotes the absolute value of (y – 1). Player 2's most preferred policy is 3, and for any final policy y e X his payoff is given by vz(y) = 10 – ly – 31. That is, each player prefers policies that are closer to his most-preferred policy. a. Write the game down as a normal-form game. Is this a game of perfect or imperfect information? b. Find a subgame-perfect equilibrium for this game. Is it unique? c. Find a Nash equilibrium that is not subgame perfect. Is it unique? If yes, explain. If not, show all the Nash equilibria for this game.

ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

14th Edition

ISBN:9780190931919

Author:NEWNAN

Publisher:NEWNAN

Chapter1: Making Economics Decisions

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1QTC

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Two friends are deciding where to go for dinner. There are three choices, which we label A, B, and C. Max prefers A to B to C. Sally prefers B to A to C. To decide which restaurant to go to, the friends adopt the following procedure: First, Max eliminates one of three choices. Then, Sally decides among the two remaining choices. Thus, Max has three strategies (eliminate A, eliminate B, and eliminate C). For each of those strategies, Sally has two choices (choose among the two remaining). a.Write down the extensive form (game tree) to represent this game. b.If Max acts non-strategically, and makes a decision in the first period to eliminate his least desirable choice, what will the final decision be? c.What is the subgame-perfect equilibrium of the above game? d. Does your answer in b. differ from your answer in c.? Explain why or why not. Only typed Answer
Consider the following Guessing Game. There are n = 10 players simultaneously choosing a number in {1, 2, 3}. The winners are those closest to 1/2 the average guess (they evenly split the prize between the winners if there is more than one). Find the set of rationalizable strategy profiles. Justify your answer. please no handwriting and this course about game theory (topic Rationalizability) answer with all steps, please
The count is three balls and two strikes, and the bases are empty. The batter wants to maximize the probability of getting a hit or a walk, while the pitcher wants to minimize this probability. The pitcher has to decide whether to throw a fast ball or a curve ball, while the batter has to decide whether to prepare for a fast ball or a curve ball. The strategic form of this game is shown here. Find all Nash equilibria in mixed strategies.
In 'the dictator' game, one player (the dictator) chooses how to divide a pot of $10 between herself and another player (the recipient). The recipient does not have an opportunity to reject the proposed distribution. As such, if the dictator only cares about how much money she makes, she should keep all $10 for herself and give the recipient nothing. However, when economists conduct experiments with the dictator game, they find that dictators often offer strictly positive amounts to the recipients. Are dictators behaving irrationally in these experiments? Whether you think they are or not, your response should try to provide an explanation for the behavior.
See the extensive form game in the image attached (the payoffs of player 1 are written on top and the payoffs of player 2 are on the bottom). a) Write this game in normal form (a player's strategy is a complete contingent plan that tells them what to play at each of their information sets) (b) Find all the Nash equilibria of the normal form game from part (a)
Microsoft and a smaller rival often have to select from one of two competing technologies, A and B. The rival always prefers to select the same technology as Microsoft (because compatibility is important), while Microsoft always wants to select a different technology from its rival. If the two companies select different technologies, Microsoft's payoff is 6 units of utility, while the small rival suffers a loss of utility of 2. If the two companies select the same technology, Microsoft suffers a loss of utility of 2 while the rival gains 2 units of utility. Using the given information, fill in the payoffs for each cell in the matrix, assuming that each company chooses its technology simultaneously. Microsoft Technology A Technology B Rival Technology A Rival: , Microsoft Rival: , Microsoft Technology B Rival: , Microsoft Rival: , Microsoft True or False: There is no equilibrium in pure strategies. True False Note:- Do not provide handwritten…
Suppose that, in an ultimatum game, the proposer may not propose less than $1 nor fractional amounts, and therefore must propose $1, $2, …, or $10 (see image attached below). The responder must Accept (A) or Reject (R). Suppose, first, that this game is played by two egoists, for whom u(x,y)=x. Find all subgame-perfect equilibria in this game. Suppose, second, that this game is played by two altruists, for whom u(x,y) = ⅔(x)1/2 + ⅓(y)1/2. Find all subgame-perfect equilibria in this game.
3. Two individuals are involved in a synergistic relationship. If both individuals devote more effort to the relationship, they are both better off. Specifically, an effort level is a nonnegative number, and player 1's payoff function is e₁(1+€₂-e₁), where ei is player i's effort level. For player 2 the cost of effort is either the same as that of player 1, and hence her payoff function is given by e2(1+e₁ - e₂), or effort is very costly for her in which case her payoff function is given by e₂(1 + e₁ — 2e2). 1 Player 2 knows player 1's payoff function and whether the cost of effort is high for herself or not. Player 1, however, is uncertain about player 2's cost of effort. He believes that the cost of effort is low with probability p, and high with probability 1 - p, where 0 < p < 1. Find the Bayesian Nash equilibrium of this game as a function of p.
Olivia is thinking about opening a new bakery (the entrant). There is already a bakery open in her neighborhood (the incumbent), and the owner of the incumbent bakery makes it clear that if Olivia enters the market, they will cut their prices in an attempt to drive the new bakery out of business. Based on the payoff matrix below, is the incumbent’s threat credible? That is, if Olivia opens a new bakery, will the incumbent actually lower their prices? Note: the entrant chooses the row, the incumbent chooses the column High price Low price Enter 1, 2 -1, 1 Don’t enter 0, 10 0, 1 a. Yes, the threat is credible b. No, the threat is not credible
Within a voluntary contribution game, the Nash equilibrium level of contribution is zero, but in experiments, it is often possible to sustain positive levels of contribution for a long period. How might we best explain this? A) Participants are altruistic, and so value the payoff which other participants receive, benefiting (indirectly) from making a contribution. B) Participants believe that if they make a contribution, then other participants will be more likely to make a contribution. C) Participants in experiments believe that they have to make contributions in order to receive any payoff from their participation. D) Participants have experience of working in situations in which cooperation can be sustained for mutual benefit and so have internalised a social norm of cooperation
Consider the following bargaining game with three rounds: Players 1 and 2 divide a pie of size 1. Both players have a common discount factor, δ = 0.9. In the first round (player 1 proposes): player 1 proposes x ∈ [0, 1]. If player 2 accepts the offer, then player 1 gets x, and player 2 gets 1−x. If player 2 rejects the offer, the game proceeds to round 2. In the second round (player 2 proposes): player 2 proposes y ∈ [0, 1]. If player 1 accepts the offer, then player 1 gets δy, and player 2 gets δ − δy. If player 2 rejects the offer, the game proceeds to round 3, the final round. In the third and final round (player 1 proposes): player 1 proposes z ∈ [0, 1]. If player 2 accepts the offer, player 1 gets δ2z, and player 2 gets δ2 − δ2z. If player 2 rejects the offer, everyone gets 0. 1. What would be the SPNE of the game?
The chicken game has often been used to model crises. Recall that in this game, the two players drive straight at each other. They can choose to swerve or keep going straight. If one swerves, and the other goes straight, assume that the one that swerves gets -10 utility and the one that goes straight gets 10 utility, since the one that swerves is deemed the loser. If both swerve, both get 0 utility. If both go straight, they crash and get -50 utility. Assume both players have a discount rate of 0.9 Draw the stage game of date night List all pure strategy Nash equilibria of the single stage game Consider an infinite horizon version of Chicken. Can you get an SPNE in which the both players swerve using a grim trigger type strategy? Consider the following strategies: both players swerve, as long as neither ever went straight. If one player ever plays straight, in all subsequent rounds the player that swerved goes straight and the player that went straight swerves. Can you think…