Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: game theory

Is It Better to Outsource or Insource T-shirts?

Why do H&M and Gap disagree?

While European retailers like H&M (biggest Bangladesh garment buyer), Benetton, Marks & Spencer and Carrefour will act to together to elevate Bangladesh factory safety standards, US firms like Gap, Wal-Mart, J.C. Penney and Target are each acting alone. Why?

Sounds like retailers are facing the prisoners’ dilemma. 

Picture for a moment 2 (guilty) suspects. Questioned by the police, each one can confess or remain silent. When one confesses and the other does not, the talker gets a less severe sentence. If both are silent, then they are released; if both confess, then they get equal jail time.

And therein lies the dilemma. Do you base your decision on what you think the other individual will do? The problem is that each one’s fate depends on what the other prisoner does. And, neither knows the other’s strategy.

An example of economic game theory, the prisoners’ dilemma involves strategizing against a second party that has the power to affect the consequences of your decisions. Whether looking at disarmament negotiations, Democrats and Republicans, or H&M and Gap, the basic strategic patterns are similar. John Nash won a Nobel Prize for his research about Game Theory.

So yes, retailers have compelling ethical incentives to elevate safety standards in Bangladesh. However, because an ethical strategy coincides with profit considerations, each one’s decision is all about competition and the prisoners’ dilemma.

Sources and Resources: This Washington Post article provides good background on how retailers disagree about elevating factory safety and here is the  6 page agreement that most US firms are not signing. For more on the prisoners’ dilemma at econlife, you might enjoy posts on OPEC, Congress, Ivy League schools and World Cup soccer. Please note that this post includes some excerpts from previous posts on the prisoners’ dilemma.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Decisions Have An Opportunity Cost That Require Tradeoffs

One of the first calls a new Nobel Prize winner might get is from Adam Smith, editor of NobelPrize.org. As you might expect, hearing his name, people initially wonder if the call is for real. Usually Mr. Smith does a quick interview and sometimes, if the winner missed the congratulatory phone call, he shares the good news.

This year, Adam Smith called other 2012 Nobel recipients but not the people who got the econ prize. 89 years old, Lloyd Shapley, professor emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles was not available to talk. His co-prize winner, Alvin E. Roth, a Harvard professor (who will soon be at Stanford), told a bit about himself and his work to a different Nobel caller. (I am disappointed that I cannot say Adam Smith called the new econ laureates.)

In markets that do not involve money, it is tough to create optimal matches. Working separately, these scholars created the math that made it possible. As Dr. Roth explains in his Nobel interview,  he developed a practical application of the concept that Lloyd Shapley and David Gale created. Because of Shapley and Roth, more donors and recipients are paired for kidneys, more people can get assigned the roommates they each want and more NYC children can go to schools that prefer them. You can see the complexities in the diagram below from a Nobel website.

Technically the Nobel Prize in economics is really the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel because it was created long after Alfred Nobel died and therefore was not in his will. Interestingly, with Lloyd Shapley a mathematician, this year again, one of the economics prizes did not go to an economist. In 2002 it want to Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist and in 2009 to Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist.

A final fact: I was delighted that in his interview, Dr, Roth said, “Yes, economics is about real life, so I’m very interested in that.”

Sources and Resources: I suggest listening firsthand to Dr. Roth’s interview so that you can “meet him” and hear firsthand what he does. To learn more about how Dr. Shapley and his associate, David Gale, established the groundwork for Dr. Roth, their brief and easy to understand 1962 math article about “pairwise” matching in marriage markets is fascinating. For the detailed explanation of the three scholars’ accomplishments, Nobel has an excellent description that also has more about the diagram I’ve included. Finally, I suggest looking at Dr. Roth’s blog. He has a great smiling picture of him and his wife with the caption, “An inadvertent ad for Starbucks.”

 

 

 

 

And, here, also from Nobel.org, are pictures of Dr. Roth (above) and Dr. Shapley.

 

 

2012 economics Nobel Prize winner

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16636_3.16_000012166514XSmall

Composed of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans, the congressional super committee is supposed to create a deficit reduction plan. If they do not propose the plan or if Congress does not approve their plan, then automatic cuts are triggered. The automatic cuts include policies that each party opposes.

As talks unfold, the Republicans could wind up with either:

  1. Continued tax cuts and less spending
  2. Compromise on deficit reduction
  3. Automatic cuts

Meanwhile, the Democrats could wind up with either:

  1. Continued entitlement spending and tax increases
  2. Compromise on deficit reduction
  3. Automatic cuts

#1 is best for each one but tough to achieve. #2 is the compromise. #3 is the disaster.

The Economic Lesson

Sounds like the super committee is facing the prisoners’ dilemma.

Imagine for a moment 2 prisoners who were just arrested. Interrogated by police in separate rooms, each prisoner wants to minimize jail time. The problem is that each one’s fate depends on what the other prisoner does. And, neither knows the other’s strategy.

  1. The best alternative is to confess, incriminate the other prisoner and get a suspended sentence but that works only if the other prisoner remains silent.
  2. Another alternative is to remain silent and get a brief jail term. But then both need to say nothing.
  3. Finally, if both confess, then they each receive a very long jail term.

Like the super committee, #1 is best for each one but tough to achieve. #2 is the compromise. #3 is the disaster.

An example of economic game theory, the prisoners’ dilemma involves strategizing against a second party that has the power to affect the consequences of your decisions.

Game theory has been called the economics of cooperation (or non-cooperation). Whether looking at disarmament negotiations, Pepsi and Coke or Democrats and Republicans, the basic strategic patterns are similar. John Nash won a Nobel Prize for his research about Game Theory.

Here, NPR Planet Money called the super committee negotiations a game of chicken.

An Economic Question: How might Coke’s and Pepsi’s decisions resemble the prisoners’ dilemma?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16422_8.26_000005651286XSmall

Faced with rising prices and pressure to increase production what should OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) do? They could not agree.

Why? Maybe it’s the prisoners’ dilemma.

Picture for a moment 2 (guilty) suspects. Questioned by the police, each one can confess or remain silent. When one confesses and the other does not, the talker gets a less severe sentence. If both are silent, then they are released; if both confess, then they get equal jail time. And therein lies the dilemma. Do you base your decision on what you think the other individual will do?

As a cartel, OPEC’s 12 members have a perpetual prisoners’ dilemma. If the cartel assigns quotas, should they observe them? Maybe not if everyone else does. But, if all produce more, then price drops. And now, as one oil analyst said, “Everybody in OPEC is cheating…” You can see why cartel arrangements usually disintegrate.

Mathematician John Nash (1928- ) and 2 other researchers won the 1994 Nobel Prize in economics for “their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of non-cooperative games.” The prisoners’ dilemma is one example of Dr. Nash’s work. 

The Economic Lesson

Game theory is about the “science of strategy” for individuals, business firms and nations.  Mathematically and logically determining who benefits, game theory focuses on individual motivation, cooperative and non-cooperative behavior, and group outcomes. The prisoners’ dilemma is one example of the basics of game theory.

In this econtalk interview, a behavioral economist explains the limits of game theory.

An Economic Question: How might the prisoners’ dilemma relate to Coca-Cola contemplating a price increase for Diet Coke?

 

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16215_11.19_000005031630XSmall

Joining Harvard and the multitudes they hoped would follow, in 2006, Princeton eliminated its early admissions option. Now, with Harvard and the University of Virginia, Princeton has said it will return to early admissions because few followed.

The Economic Lesson

I wonder whether we can explain both decisions through game theory. First, let’s call the market structure within which Ivy League schools compete, an oligopoly. With few market participants on the supply side, a “price making” capability (admissions standards), and difficult entry and exit (colleges neither leave nor enter the Ivy League), schools typically wield considerable power.

Also, as oligopolies, they engage in game theory. Here is how it works. The two firms (or schools) know that, to some extent, they are interdependent; one school’s decisions affect the other school. Consequently, each one tries to predict what the other will do.

The result is a behavioral matrix called the prisoners’ dilemma. Imagine a square divided into quarters. For example, above the left quarter is Princeton/no early admission. Above the right quarter is Princeton/early admission. To the left of the upper quarter is Penn/no early admission. To the left of the lower quarter is Penn/early admission.

You can fill in the matrix. Where Princeton/no early admission and Penn/no early admission converge, we could say that equal numbers of students apply. However, what happens when they converge with one school not doing it and the other proceeding? What if neither proceeds?

As you can see here, the prisoners’ dilemma conveys the pros and cons of unilateral behavior and of collusion. The problem, as Princeton discovered, is that market participants cannot guarantee competitors’ behavior.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment