ON THE COINCIDENCE OF THE FEEDBACK NASH AND STACKELBERG EQUILIBRIA IN ECONOMIC APPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENTIAL GAMES

In this paper the scope of the applicability of the Stackelberg equilibrium concept in differential games is investigated. Firstly, it is showed that for a class of differential games with state-interdependence the stationary feedback Nash equilibrium coincides with the stationary feedback Stackelberg equilibrium independently of the player being the leader of the game. Secondly, sufficient conditions for obtaining the coincidence between the two equilibria are defined. A review of different economic models shows that this coincidence is going to occur for a good number of economic applications of differential games. This result appears because of the continuous-time setting in which differential games are defined. In this setting the first movement advantage of the leader may disappears and then both equilibria coincide.Differential Games; Stationary Feedback Nash Equilibrium; Stationary Feedback Stackelberg Equilibrium; Coincidence.

Assessing the Profitability of Cooperative Advertising Programs in Competing Channels

Producción CientíficaA large literature studied the profitability (effectiveness) of cooperative advertising programs (CAPs) in distribution channels, but very few studies modeled pricing decisions in competitive markets under different channel structures. This paper fills this gap. We propose a game-theoretic model where two competing channels make pricing and promotional decisions. The efectiveness of CAPs is studied under different channel structures to examine how vertical and horizontal externalities can impact the effectiveness of CAPs. Each channel structure can be integrated or decentralized to account for different vertical interaction effects, resulting in three cases: (i) both channels are decentralized (DD), (ii) both are integrated (II), and (iii) a hybrid structure where one channel is decentralized and is competing with an integrated channel (DI). We solve six non-cooperative games: (1) both manufacturers offer CAPs under DD, (2) only one manufacturer offers a CAP under DD, (3) both manufacturers do not offer CAPs under DD, (4) the decentralized manufacturer offers a CAP under DI, (5) the decentralized manufacturer does not offer a CAP under DI, and (6) the channel problem under II. Then, we obtain and compare equilibrium profits and strategies across these games. The main results indicate that the profitability of CAPs depends on the levels of price competition and of the advertising effects. Also,while manufacturers benefit from CAPs, retailers may not find such programs profitable. Finally, the decentralized or integrated structure of the competing channel significantly impacts the effects of cooperative advertising. For example, CAPs can effectively coordinate the DD channel and even help it exceed profits earned by a vertically integrated channel. However, in the DI case, although CAPs can improve total channel profits, they do not fully coordinate the channel.1Research of the first and third authors is supported by the National Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC). The second author’s research is partially supported by MEC under project ECO2014-52343-P, co-financed by FEDER funds and the COST Action IS1104 “The EU in the new economic complex geography: models, tools and policy evaluation"

Markov Perfect Nash Equilibrium in stochastic differential games as solution of a generalized Euler Equations System

This paper gives a new method to characterize Markov Perfect Nash Equilibrium in stochastic differential games by means of a set of Generalized Euler Equations. Necessary and sufficient conditions are given

The Market for Medical Ethics

At the core of Kenneth Arrow’s classic 1963 essay on medical uncertainty is a claim that has failed to carry the day among economists. This claim—that physician adherence to an anti-competitive ethic of fidelity to patients and suppression of pecuniary influences on clinical judgment pushes medical markets toward social optimality—has won Arrow near-iconic status among medical ethicists (and many physicians). Yet conventional wisdom among health economists, including several participants in this symposium, holds that this claim is either naïve or outdated. Health economists admire Arrow’s article for its path-breaking analysis of market failures resulting from information asymmetry, uncertainty, and moral hazard. But his suggestion that anticompetitive professional norms can compensate for these market failures is at odds with economists’ more typical treatment of professional norms as monopolistic constraints on contractual possibility. If the goal of health care policy and law is to maximize the social welfare yield from medical spending, consideration of the place of professional ethics norms in health policy requires that we pose three questions. First, how can we distinguish between professional norms that enhance social welfare (even if “anticompetitive” in some sense) and therefore merit our deference (and perhaps even some legal protection) and norms that reduce welfare? Second, when we conclude that a professional norm is socially undesirable, how should we go about choosing among regulatory and legal strategies and deference to markets as means for dissolving the norm? Third, when we conclude that a professional norm is socially desirable, how should we go about preserving it? Should we defer to market outcomes—and perhaps shield select forms of professional collusion from antitrust intervention? Or should we defend this norm actively, through legal and regulatory intervention? This essay focuses on the first of these three questions, since it is the subject of Arrow’s article. From a public policy perspective, however, the second and third are just as important. It is hardly obvious that a socially undesirable norm should be targeted by judges or regulators rather than left to wither in the marketplace; nor is it clear that a socially desirable norm needs legal or regulatory support to survive

Generic advertising without supply control: implications of funding mechanisms for advertising intensities in competitive industries

Producer profit‐maximising rules for generic commodity advertising programs and associated funding levies are derived. Lump‐sum, per unit and ad valorem levies, and government subsidy funding arrangements are compared and contrasted. The initial single‐product competitive market model is extended to incorporate international trade, government price policies, and multiple commodity interactions.Marketing,

The Design of Free-Market Economies in a Post-Neoclassical World

The ‘Washington Consensus’ supporting competitive frames and market solutions in economics and law was shown inadequate to address social problems in non-U.S. settings. So would diversity and dynamics suggest theories in need of adjustment to other realities such as culture, increasing returns and market power. Reform must account for an economics of falling cost, ecological limits and complementarity in our relations. Such shall open new applications for economics and law. In this paper a theory of planning horizons is introduced and then employed to raise some meaningful questions about the neoclassical view with respect to its substitution, decreasing returns and independence assumptions. Suppositions of complementarity, increasing returns and interdependence suggest that competition is inefficient by upholding a myopic culture resistant to change. Growth – though long believed to rise from markets and competitive values – may not derive from these sources. Instead, as civilizations advance, shifting from material wants to higher-order intangible output, they evolve from market tradeoffs (substitution and scarcity) into realms of common need (complementarity and abundance). If so, then neoclassical arguments shall no longer apply to any advanced information economy also restrained by its ecology. Indeed, this paper opens standard theory into a more general framework constructing ‘horizon effects’ into a case for cooperation – as more efficient than competition for all long-term problems of growth. The case is made that competition is keeping us stupid and immature, rewarding a myopic culture at the expense of learning and trust, therefore retarding economic growth instead of encouraging it as believed. The policy implications of horizonal theory are explored, with respect to regulatory aims and economic concerns. Such an approach emphasizes strict constraints against entry barriers, ecological harm, market power abuse and ethical lapses. Social cohesion – not competition – is sought as a means to extend horizons and thereby increase efficiency, equity and ecological health. The overriding importance of horizon effects for regulatory assessment dominates other orthodox standards in economics and law. In sum, much of the reason for the failure of the Washington Consensus stems from myopic concerns central to any horizonal view. Reframing economics along horizonal lines suggests some meaningful insight to how regulations should be designed to keep pace with this approach in economics and law