Mostly summarized from Gregory Mankiw’s Principles of Economics, 5th Ed.

PART 5 Firm Behavior and the Organization of Industry

Chapter 17 of 36 Oligopoly

Section 15 of 25

Figure 2 here

In a prisoners’ dilemma situation cooperation is difficult but not impossible.

Not all prisoners decide to turn in their partners in crime.

Cartels sometimes hold to collusive arrangements, despite the incentive for members to defect.

Players can solve the prisoners' dilemma by playing the game many times.

Reconsider the duopolists Jack and Jill, Figure 2.

Jack and Jill would like to maintain the cell D monopoly outcome

· each produces 30 gallons a week

· each gains $1,800 profit a week

If Jack and Jill play this game only once neither has incentive to stay with this agreement.

Self-interest drives both to renege and choose the dominant 40 gallons strategy, cell A.

Suppose Jack and Jill know they will play the same game every week.

When they make their initial agreement to keep production low at 30 gallons they can specify what happens if one party reneges.

They could agree if one reneges and produces 40 gallons both will produce 40 gallons forever after.

If one party is producing at 40 gallons, the other has reason to do the same.

The threat of this penalty should be everything needed to maintain cooperation.

Jack and Jill know defecting would raise his or her profit from $1,800 to $2,000 but this benefit would last for only one week.

Thereafter, profit would fall to $1,600 and stay there.

When the players care about future profits, they will choose to forgo the one-time gain from reneging.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

HAT Manifesto Part 1/3 - Rubric Cube - 240804 revision