Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 179, Issue 3–4, pp 249–266 | Cite as

The role of noise in alliance formation and collusion in conflicts

  • James W. BoudreauEmail author
  • Shane Sanders
  • Nicholas Shunda
Article
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Many real-world conflicts are to some extent determined randomly by noise, and many also depend critically on the formation of alliances or long-run cooperative relationships. In this paper, we emphasize that the specific manner by which noise is modeled in contest success functions (CSFs) has implications for both the possibility of forming cooperative relationships and the features of such relationships. The key issue is that there are two distinct approaches to modeling noise in CSFs, each with their own merits and each leading to different results depending on which type of alliance formation is under consideration. In a one-shot conflict, we find that when noise is modeled as an exponential parameter in the CSF, there is a range of values for which an alliance between two parties can be beneficial; that is not the case for models with an additive noise parameter. In an infinitely repeated conflict setting, we again find discrepant results: with additive noise, sustaining collusion via Nash reversion strategies is easier the more noise there is and more difficult the larger the contest’s prize value, while an increase in the contest’s number of players can make sustaining collusion either more or less difficult. This is all in marked contrast to the case of an exponential noise parameter, when noise plays no impact on the sustainability of collusion. Given that alliances do occur in both scenarios in the real world, this contrast could be seen as supporting the importance of both specifications.

Keywords

Contests Conflict Alliance paradox Collusion Noise 

JEL Classification

C72 C73 D72 D74 

References

  1. Abreu, D. (1986). Extremal equilibria of oligopolistic supergames. Journal of Economic Theory, 39(1), 191–225.Google Scholar
  2. Abreu, D. (1988). On the theory of infinitely repeated games with discounting. Econometrica, 56(2), 383–396.Google Scholar
  3. Alexeev, M., & Leitzel, J. (1991). Collusion and rent-seeking. Public Choice, 69(3), 241–252.Google Scholar
  4. Alexeev, M., & Leitzel, J. (1996). Rent shrinking. Southern Economic Journal, 62(3), 620–626.Google Scholar
  5. Amegashie, J. A. (2006a). Asymmetry and collusion in infinitely repeated contests. Working Paper, University of Guelph.Google Scholar
  6. Amegashie, J. A. (2006b). A contest success function with a tractable noise parameter. Public Choice, 126(1–2), 135–144.Google Scholar
  7. Amegashie, J. A. (2011). Incomplete property rights and overinvestment. Social Choice and Welfare, 37(1), 81–95.Google Scholar
  8. Blavatskyy, P. R. (2010). Contest success function with the possibility of a draw: Axiomatization. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 46(2), 267–276.Google Scholar
  9. Cason, T. N., Masters, W. A., & Sheremeta, R. M. (2013). Winner-take-all and proportional-prize contests: Theory and experimental results. Working Paper, Case Western Reserve University.Google Scholar
  10. Cheikbossian, G. (2012). The collective action problem: Within-group cooperation and between-group competition in a repeated rent-seeking game. Games and Economic Behavior, 74(1), 68–82.Google Scholar
  11. Dasgupta, A., & Nti, K. O. (1998). Designing an optimal contest. European Journal of Political Economy, 14(4), 587–603.Google Scholar
  12. Eggert, W., Itaya, J., & Mino, K. (2011). A dynamic model of conflict and appropriation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 78(1–2), 167–182.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, J. W. (1971). A non-cooperative equilibrium for supergames. Review of Economic Studies, 38(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  14. Grossmann, M. (2014). Uncertain contest success function. European Journal of Political Economy, 33, 134–148.Google Scholar
  15. Grossmann, M., Lang, M., & Dietl, H. (2011). Transitional dynamics in a Tullock contest with a general cost function. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 11(1), 17.Google Scholar
  16. Hillman, A. L., & Riley, J. G. (1989). Politically contestable rents and transfers. Economics & Politics, 1(1), 17–39.Google Scholar
  17. Huck, S., Konrad, K. A., & Müller, W. (2002). Merger and collusion in contests. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 158(4), 563–575.Google Scholar
  18. Itaya, J., & Sano, H. (2003). Exit from rent-seeking contests. Japanese Economic Review, 54(2), 218–228.Google Scholar
  19. Jia, H. (2008). A stochastic derivation of the ratio form of contest success functions. Public Choice, 135(1), 125–130.Google Scholar
  20. Jia, H. (2012). Contests with the probability of a draw: A stochastic foundation. Economic Record, 88(282), 391–406.Google Scholar
  21. Ke, C., Konrad, K. A., & Morath, F. (2013). Brothers in arms—An experiment on the alliance puzzle. Games and Economic Behavior, 77(1), 61–76.Google Scholar
  22. Konrad, K. A. (2009). Strategy and dynamics in contests. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Krähmer, D. (2007). Equilibrium learning in simple contests. Games and Economic Behavior, 59(1), 105–131.Google Scholar
  24. Leininger, W., & Yang, C. (1994). Dynamic rent-seeking games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7(3), 406–427.Google Scholar
  25. Linster, B. G. (1994). Cooperative rent-seeking. Public Choice, 81(1–2), 23–34.Google Scholar
  26. Mehlum, H., & Moene, K. (2006). Fighting against the odds. Economics of Governance, 7(1), 75–87.Google Scholar
  27. Rai, B. K., & Sarin, R. (2009). Generalized contest success functions. Economic Theory, 40(1), 139–149.Google Scholar
  28. Ross, M. (2015). What have we learned about the resource curse? Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 239–259.Google Scholar
  29. Shaffer, S., & Shogren, J. (2008). Infinitely repeated contests: How strategic interaction affects the efficiency of governance. Regulation & Governance, 2(2), 234–252.Google Scholar
  30. Skaperdas, S. (1996). Contest success functions. Economic Theory, 7(2), 283–290.Google Scholar
  31. Tullock, G. (1980). Efficient rent seeking. In J. Buchanan, G. Tullock, & R. Tollison (Eds.), Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society (pp. 97–112). College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wasser, C. (2013). Incomplete information in rent-seeking contests. Economic Theory, 53(1), 239–268.Google Scholar
  33. Yang, C. (1993). Cooperation by credible threats: On the social costs of transfer contests under uncertainty. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 149(3), 559–578.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Finance and QA, Coles College of BusinessKennesaw State UniversityKennesawUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sport Management, Falk College of Sport and Human DynamicsSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of RedlandsRedlandsUSA

Personalised recommendations