Advertisement

Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 575–596 | Cite as

Reciprocal rent-seeking contests

  • Hiroyuki SanoEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

We construct a model in which all rational rent-seekers may be willing to accept a negative payoff in a Tullock contest in which the rent-seekers are driven by reciprocity motives. We show that in the reciprocal Tullock contest, a unique reciprocity equilibrium exists if the reciprocal concerns of rent-seekers are sufficiently small relative to their material concerns, and that otherwise, there are two reciprocity equilibria: a destructive equilibrium and a constructive equilibrium. The individual rent-seeking expenditure in the former equilibrium is more than that in the Nash equilibrium in the original Tullock contest; moreover, over-dissipation can occur in a destructive equilibrium even in the case of constant returns to expenditure. These results derived from our reciprocal contest model are consistent with observations in most existing experimental studies on the Tullock contest.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Atsushi Kajii, Takashi Sekiguchi, and participants at the Summer Workshop on Economic Theory (SWET) 2010. My special thanks are due to the associate editor and two anonymous referees of this journal for helpful suggestions and comments. I am also grateful to Jun-ichi Itaya, Hideki Konishi, and Yoichi Hizen. However, all errors remain my own responsibility.

References

  1. Anderson LR, Stafford SL (2003) An experimental analysis of rent seeking under varying competitive conditions. Public Choice 115:199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Corcoran WJ (1984) Long-run equilibrium and total expenditures in rent-seeking. Public Choice 43:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Corcoran WJ, Karels GV (1985) Rent-seeking behavior in the long-run. Public Choice 46:227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis DD, Reilly RJ (1998) Do too many cooks always spoil the stew? An experimental analysis of rent-seeking and the role of a strategic buyer. Public Choice 95:89–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dufwenberg M, Kirchsteiger G (2004) A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games Econ Behav 47:268–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) The theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q J Econ 114:817–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fehr E, Schmidt KM (2006) The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism—experimental evidence and new theories. In: Kolm S-C, Ythier JM (eds) Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity, vol 1. North-Holland, pp 615–691Google Scholar
  8. Hazlett TW, Michaels RJ (1993) The cost of rent-seeking: evidence from cellular telephone license lotteries. South Econ J 59:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hehenkamp B, Leininger W, Possajennikov A (2004) Evolutionary equilibrium in Tullock contests: spite and dissipation. Eur J Political Econ 20:1045–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herrmann B, Orzen H (2008) The appearance of homo rivalis: social preferences and the nature of rent seeking. CeDEx Discussion Paper Series No. 2008–2010, University of NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  11. Hillman AL, Katz E (1984) Risk-averse rent seekers and the social cost of monopoly power. Econ J 94:104–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Millner EL, Pratt MD (1989) An experimental investigation of efficient rent-seeking. Public Choice 62:139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Millner EL, Pratt MD (1991) Risk aversion and rent-seeking: an extension and some experimental evidence. Public Choice 69:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nitzan S (1991) Collective rent dissipation. Econ J 101:1522–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Potters J, de Vries CG, van Winden F (1998) An experimental examination of rational rent-seeking. Eur J Political Econ 14:783–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rabin M (1993) Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am Econ Rev 83:1281–1302Google Scholar
  17. Riechmann T (2007) An analysis of rent-seeking games with relative-payoff maximizers. Public Choice 133:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sano H (2009) Imitative learning in Tullock contests: does overdissipation prevail in the long run? J Inst Theor Econ 165:365–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schaffer ME (1988) Evolutionarily stable strategies for a finite population and a variable contest size. J Theor Biol 132:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmitt P, Shupp R, Swope K, Cadigan J (2004) Multi-period rent-seeking contests with carryover: theory and experimental evidence. Econ Gov 5:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shogren JF, Baik KH (1991) Reexamining efficient rent-seeking in laboratory markets. Public Choice 69:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sobel RS, Garrett TA (2002) On the measurement of rent seeking and its social opportunity cost. Public Choice 112:115–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sobel J (2005) Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. J Econ Lit 153:392–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tullock G (1980) Efficient rent seeking. In: Buchanan JM, Tollison RD, Tullock G (eds) Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society. A &M University Press, Texas, pp 97–112Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsOtaru University of CommerceOtaruJapan

Personalised recommendations