Consider a Stackelberg game of quantity competition between two firms. Firm 1 is the leader and firm 2 is the follower. Market demand is described by the inverse demand function P=1000-4Q. Each firm has a constant unit cost of production equal to 20. Suppose firm 2's unit cost of production is c<20. What value would c have so that in the Nash Equilibrium, the two firms, the leader and the follower, had the same market share?

Consider a Stackelberg game of quantity competition between two firms. Firm 1 is the leader and firm 2 is the follower. Market demand is described by the inverse demand function P=1000-4Q. Each firm has a constant unit cost of production equal to 20. Suppose firm 2's unit cost of production is c<20. What value would c have so that in the Nash Equilibrium, the two firms, the leader and the follower, had the same market share?

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 firms X and Y compete with each other. Firm X can produce one of three products X1, X2, or X3. Similarly, firm Y can produce one of three products Y1, Y1, and Y3. Each firm's profit depends on its own and its competitor's decision about which product to produce. These profits are given in the table below where each cell presents profits corresponding to a pair of chosen strategies with the first number being the profit of firm X and the second being the profit of firm Y. For example, if X chooses to produce X3 and Y chooses to produce Y1, the profit of X will be $15 and the profit of Y will be $20. The firms make their product choice decisions simultaneously and independently of each other. Y1 Y2 Y3 X1 0, 0 12, 8 16, 16 15, 20 18, 9 20, 15 8, 12 18, 18 9, 18 X2 X3 11) Does this game have any equilibrium in dominant strategies? If yes, find all of them. 12) In addition to the equilibria (if any) you found in the previous question, does this game have any other equilibria? If yes,…
We can see from the payoff matrix that there are no pure strategy Nash equilibrium in this game because at least one firm would always have an incentive to change its behavior. From Nash's theorem, we know there must be at least one Nash equilibrium so there must be a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium for this game. Find the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium by first deleting all dominated strategies in the game What's the expected payoff to Firm 1 in the equilibrium?
Suppose two firms (A and B) are competing in price. Each firm can charge either High or Low price and the payoffs (profit or loss) from these strategies are presented below: Firm B High 50, -40 10, 10 Low Firm A Low 0,0 High -40, 50 a. Find all pure strategy Nash equilibria b. If this game is played ten times by these two firms, find all pure strategy Nash equilibria c. Suppose this game is played infinitely and these firms agreed to charge high price in order to earn profits of Gh10 each but a firm will charge low price if its rival cheats. Find the a discount rate that will cause a firm to cheat d. Suppose the discount rate is 40% will the collusion strategies constitute a Nash Equilibrium
Can you suggest a better game theory than Cournot, Stackelberg and Bertrand? The Cournot Model: what happens when two firms compete simultaneously on the quantity of output they produce of a homogeneous good. The Stackelberg Model: what happens when two firms compete sequentially on the quantity of output they produce of a homogeneous good. The Bertrand Model: what happens when two firms compete simultaneously on the price of a homogenous good.
Suppose two firms A and B compete against each other in a Cournot fashion by choosing their quantities. What is the Nash Equilibrium of the game if both firms have a constant marginal cost of 2 and the price in the market is: p(qa + qB) = 20 – 2(qA + qB). O (3, 3) O (2, 2) O (4, 4) None of the other answers are correct (5, 5)
A and B are competitors in the mobile phone industry. Both A and B have to decide whether to participate or not to participate in a Phone for the Future Trade Fair next month. The matrix payoff below shows the profits (USD million) corresponding to their actions. a) What is the Nash equilibrium of the above game? b) Is the Nash equilibrium Pareto Optima? Explain. c) Suppose B is pessimistic of A's rationality, what is B's strategy? Compare and comment on B's strategy in (a) and (c). A Participate Do not participate B Participate Do not participate 400,1000 200,200 500,500 1000,400
Can a strategy be dominant for one player in a Nash equilibrium
Prove that in a strict Nash equilibrium, the equilibrium strategy of a player in a finite strategic game cannot be weakly dominated.
Imagine that there are two snowboard manufacturers (FatSki and WideBoard) in the market. Each firm can either produce ten or twenty snowboards per day. The table below (see attached) shows the profit per snowboard for each firm that will result given the joint production decisions of these two firms. Draw the game payoff matrix for this situation. Does either player have a dominant strategy? If so, what is it? What is the Nash equilibrium solution and how many boards should each player produce each day? Since FatSki and WideBoard must play this game repeatedly (i.e. make production decisions every day), what strategy would you advise them to play in order to maximize their payoff over the long term?
We can see from the payoff matrix that there are no pure strategy Nash equilibrium in this game because at least one firm would always have an incentive to change its behavior. From Nash's theorem, we know there must be at least one Nash equilibrium so there must be a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium for this game. Find the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium by first deleting all dominated strategies in the game What's the expected payoff to Firm 2 in the equilibrium?
Imagine a small town with three car repair shops competing for a limited number of customers. Explain why the three shops working together to keep their prices high is unlikely to be a Nash equilibrium.
O Cell A O Cell C O Cell E O Cell I None of the above