Bounded Rationality in a Cournot Duopoly Game
Racionalidad limitada en un juego de duopolio de Cournot
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29105/ensayos34.2-4Keywords:
Cournot Game, Bounded Rationality, Level-k Model, Asymmetric Quantal Response Equilibrium, Noisy Introspection, Cognitive HierarchyAbstract
This paper analyzes choices and welfare in a Cournot duopoly setting with linear demand using four models of bounded rationality. The models studied in this paper are Level-k, Cognitive Hierarchy, Asymmetric Quantal Response and Noisy Introspection. It is found that in the Level-k model choices, profits and welfare alternate around the Nash Equilibrium levels depending on whether the level is odd or even. In the Cognitive Hierarchy model the choices of the first two types (L-0 and L-1) coincide with the choices in the Level-k model, a L-2 produces a smaller quantity while the quantity of a L-3 is higher or lower depending on the value of a particular parameter in the model. Both in the Asymmetric Quantal Response and Noisy Introspection models, we find that choices are spread around the Nash Equilibrium level for all parameter values and thus welfare is below the Nash Equilibrium benchmark. We also use parameter estimates from other well-known experiments to obtain an approximation to empirically plausible welfare levels.
Downloads
References
Bosch-Domenech, A., Montalvo, J., Nagel, R., and Satorra, A. (2002). “One, Two, (Three), Infinity,...: Newspaper and Lab Beauty-Contest Experiments”. The American Economic Review, 92(5), 1687–1701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024737
Bosch-Domenech, A., Montalvo, J. G., Nagel, R., and Satorra, A. (2010). “A Finite Mixture Analysis of Beauty-Contest Data Using Generalized Beta Distributions”. Experimental Economics, 13(4), 461–475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-010-9251-7
Camerer, C., Ho, T., and Chong, J. (2004). “A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 861–898. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/0033553041502225
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press.
Crawford, V., and Iriberri, N. (2007). “Level-k Auctions: Can a Nonequilibrium Model of Strategic Thinking Explain the Winner’s Curse and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions?”. Econometrica, 75(6), 1721–1770. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2007.00810.x
Gneezy, U. (2005). “Step-level reasoning and bidding in auctions”. Management Science, 51(11), 1633–1642. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0423
Goeree, J., and Holt, C. (2004). “A Model of Noisy Introspection”. Games and Economic Behavior, 46(2), 365–382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-8256(03)00145-3
Kagel, J., and Roth, A. (1995). Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691213255
Kreps, D., and Scheinkman, J. (1983). “Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes”. The Bell Journal of Economics, 14(2), 326–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3003636
McKelvey, R., and Palfrey, T. (1995). “Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games”. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 6–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1023
Nagel, R. (1995). “Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study”. The American Economic Review, 85(5), 1313–1326.
Stahl, D., and Wilson, P. (1995). “On Players Models of Other Players: Theory and Experimental Evidence”. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 218–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1031
Weizsäcker, G. (2003). “Ignoring the rationality of others: evidence from experimental normal-form games”. Games and Economic Behavior, 44(1), 145–171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-8256(03)00017-4
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Mariano Runco
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
