Ex. 5-- Agenda SettingAn agenda-setting game is described as follows. The "issue space" (set of feasible poli-cies) is an interval X = [0,5]. An agenda setter (player 1) proposes an alternative x = Xagainst the status quo q = 4. After player 1 proposes x, the legislator (player 2) ob-serves the proposal and selects between the proposal x and the status quo q. Player 1'smost-preferred policy is 1, and for any final policy y = X his payoff is given byv1(y) = 10|y — 1|,-where |y1| denotes the absolute value of (y-1). Player 2's most preferred policy is 3,any final policy y Є X he payoff is given byand forv2(y) = 10|y3|.That is, each player prefers policies that are closer to his/her most-preferred policy.(1) Write down the strategic-form representation of the dynamic game.(2) Find a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium. Is it unique?

Answered: Image /qna-images/answer/55859f3b-7455-4e17-84d5-3bd8c6a67a81.jpg

Answered: Ex. 5- - Agenda Setting An…

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

Boris and Leo are playing an ultimatum bargaining game, with £1000 to share. Boris is the proposer. Suppose Leo has the following preferences: his utility in monetary terms is the amount of money he gets minus 40 percent of Boris's amount Which of the following statements is/are correct? a) If Leo's preferences change so that his utility in monetary terms were the amount of money he gets minus 100 percent of Boris's amount, his minimum acceptable offer would increase. b) The minimum offer Leo will accept is larger than £250. c) The description of Leo's preferences suggest that Leo is altruistic.
Finu all ue purt"3truto5J a fair mechanism for allocating cookies? Explain why or why not. U13. (Optional) Construct the payoff matrix for your own two-player game that satisfies the following requirements. First, each player should have three strategies. Second, the game should not have any dominant strat- egies. Third, the game should not be solvable using minimax. Fourth. should have exactly two pure-strategy Nash equilibria. Provide your game matrix, and then demonstrate that all of the above conditions the game are true.
- Individuals 1 and 2 are forming a company. The value of their relationship depends on the effort that each expends. Suppose that individual i's utility from the relationship is x² + x; − xixj, where x¿ is individual i 's effort and x ; is the effort of the other person (i = 1, 2). Assume x1, x2 ≥ 0. Which statement is true? There is a Nash equilibrium in which each player chooses effort level k > 0. This equilibrium is Pareto efficient. There is no mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium. There is a unique Nash equilibrium in which each player chooses no effort x¿ = x; = 0. The set of Nash equilibria in this game is finite. There is a Nash equilibrium in which xi = 0 and x ; = 1| =
We have a group of three friends: Kramer, Jerry and Elaine. Kramer has a $10 banknote that he will auction off, and Jerry and Elaine will be bidding for it. Jerry and Elaine have to submit their bids to Kramer privately, both at the same time. We assume that both Jerry and Elaine only have $2 that day, and the available strategies to each one of them are to bid either$0, $1 or $2. Whoever places the highest bid, wins the $10 banknote. In case of a tie (that is, if Jerry and Elaine submit the same bid), each one of them gets $5. Regardless of who wins the auction, each bidder has to pay to Kramer whatever he or she bid. Does Jerry have any strictly dominant strategy? Does Elaine?
Type out the correct answer ASAP with proper explanation of it In the Ultimatum Game, player 1 is given some money (e.g. $10; this is public knowledge), and may give some or all of this to player 2. In turn, player 2 may accept player 1’s offer, in which case the game is over; or player 2 may reject player 1’s offer, in which case neither player gets any money, and the game is over. a. If you are player 2 and strictly rational, explain why you would accept any positive offer from player 1. b. In reality, many players reject offers from player 1 that are significantly below 50%. Why
Table 9-03. Suppose you are a general in the army. Your country is at war. You are trying to invade the enemy. You can attack on the enemys east coast or the west coast. The enemy has only enough troops to defend one coast. The payoff matrix below represents whether you or the enemy wins (represented by 1) or loses (represented by 0). Enemy Defend east coast Defend west coast Enemy: 1 Enemy: 0 Attack east coast You: 0 You: 1 You Enemy: 0 Enemy: 1 Attack west coast You: 1 You: 0 Refer to Table 9-03. To win the war, O a. you must attack the west coast, only if you have credible information that the enemy is defending the east coast. O b. you must attack the west coast, and information about whether the enemy is defending the east or the west coast is irrelevant to you. c. you must attack the west coast, only if you have credible information that the enemy is defending the west coast. d. you must never attack the west coast, and information about whether the enemy is defending the east or…
Suppose that Alex and Bob complete the project sequentially. Assume that Alex decides his effort level and starts the project first, and then Bob decides his effort level and finishes the project. Present the extensive-form representation of the game (i.e., draw a decision tree which is also referred as the game tree). What is your prediction regarding the outcome of the game? Explain your prediction.
Question 2. Two students are working together to submit their Microeconomics mid-semester group coursework. Each student i can put in the effort x; that costs c(x;), in which x; E [0, 1]. This gives each student the utility of u(x1, x2). Formu- late this situation as a strategic game.
Question 4 Consider allocating an object to one of two players when each player's pref- erences are her private information. Player 1's value for the object, denoted by vị is drawn from a continuous distribution with (1. 2] as its support. Player 2's value for the object, denoted by v2, is likewise drawn from the interval 0, 1]. 1. What is the equilibrium in dominant strategies if a second price auction is used to allocate the object. Is the outcome ex-post efficient? 2. For what pairs (v1, v2) should Player 1 and Player 2 respectively be allocated the object in a mechanism that maximizes expected revenue for the seller? 3. Comment on the differing allocations you obtained in the previous two parts.
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.
A and B are a couple and they want to go into a concert. A comes from Bonn and loves the music of Ludwig van Beethoven. B comes from Salzburg and loves the music of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. There are two concerts in town: one with the music of Beethoven and one with the music of Mozart. Both (A and B) prefer to go to a concert together. If both go to a concert of Beethoven, A has a pay-off of 4 and B has a pay-off of 2. If both go to a concert of Mozart, B has a pay-off of 4 and A has a pay-off of 2. If A goes to a concert of Mozart and B to a concert of Beethoven, they are both miserable and get a pay-off of 0. But, if B goes to a concert of Mozart and A to a concert of Beethoven, they are both a little better off with a pay-off of 1. Both A and B have to make a simultaneous decision and cannot communicate prior to the decision. (a) Construct the pay-off matrix for this game. (b) Identify the Nash equilibrium or equilibria of the game. (c) Which off the allocations are…
please discuss the separation eqilibrium in details 1. Assume that two players play the Tinder game. There are two types of potential boyfriends: the gentleman (25% of the population) and the douchebag (75% of the population), and they can decide on the different level of effort: low, medium, and high. For the first type, the respective costs are 30, 50, and 80. For the second type, the respective costs are 50, 75, and 120. For the potential boyfriend, the payoff from being in relationship is 130, and the payoff associated with being dumped is 70. The girl can get 60 if she stays single, 100 if she is in relationship with the gentleman, and 25 if she dates the douchebag (credits to Owen Sims) a) Present the game in the extensive form b) Calculate the expected pay-off for the girl. Should she date at all? c) Discuss whether the game has a separating equilibrium

SEE MORE QUESTIONS

Recommended textbooks for you

ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Economics

ISBN:

9780190931919

Author:

NEWNAN

Publisher:

Oxford University Press

Principles of Economics (12th Edition)

Economics

ISBN:

9780134078779

Author:

Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. Oster

Publisher:

PEARSON

Engineering Economy (17th Edition)

Economics

ISBN:

9780134870069

Author:

William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick Koelling

Publisher:

PEARSON

ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Economics

ISBN:

9780190931919

Author:

NEWNAN

Publisher:

Oxford University Press

Principles of Economics (12th Edition)

Economics

ISBN:

9780134078779

Author:

Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. Oster

Publisher:

PEARSON

Engineering Economy (17th Edition)

Economics

ISBN:

9780134870069

Author:

William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick Koelling

Publisher:

PEARSON

Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)

Economics

ISBN:

9781305585126

Author:

N. Gregory Mankiw

Publisher:

Cengage Learning

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 & Business Strategy (Mcgraw-…

Economics

ISBN:

9781259290619

Author:

Michael Baye, Jeff Prince

Publisher:

McGraw-Hill Education

SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS