Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T15:30:16.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crime and Punishment: Are One-Shot, Two-Person Games Enough?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

William T. Bianco ,
Peter C. Ordeshook  and
George Tsebelis
William T. Bianco
Affiliation:
Duke University
Peter C. Ordeshook
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology
George Tsebelis
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

George Tsebelis argued in the March 1989 issue of this Review that decision theory is completely appropriate for analyzing games against nature but not appropriate for dissecting games against a rational opponent. Analysts who mistake a rational opponent for nature in constructing models commit what Tsebelis calls “the Robinson Crusoe fallacy.” In this controversy, William Bianco and Peter Ordeshook attack components of Tsebelis's argument. Bianco believes the model should be set up as an iterated, rather than a one-shot, game. Ordeshook feels that proper modeling cannot rely merely on two-person games and, in addition, he argues that Tsebelis commits some technical errors. In his reply, Tsebelis joins the issues and buttresses his original analysis.

Type
Controversies
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 84 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 569 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aumann, Robert J. 1981. “Survey of Repeated Games.” In Essays in Game Theory, ed. Aumann, Robert. Mannheim: Bibliographisches.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bacharach, Michael. 1987. “A Theory of Rational Decision in Games.” Erkenntnis 27: 17–55.Google Scholar
Baron, David P., and Myerson, Roger B.. 1982. “Regulating a Monopolist with Unknown Costs.” Econometrica 50: 911–30.Google Scholar
Baron, David P., and Ferejohn, John A.. 1989. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 83: 1181–1206.Google Scholar
Damme, Eric C. van. 1987. Stability and Perfection of Nash Equilibria. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Friedman, James W. 1971. “A Non-cooperative Equilibrium for Supergames.” Review of Economic Studies 38: 1–12.Google Scholar
Friedman, James W. 1986. Game Theory with Applications to Economics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, Drew, and Maskin, Eric. 1986. “The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information.” Econometrica 54: 533–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graetz, Michael J., Reinganum, Jennifer F., and Wilde, Louis L.. 1986. “The Tax Compliance Game: Toward an Interactive Theory of Law Enforcement.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 2: 1–32.Google Scholar
Guth, Werner, Leininger, Wolfgang, and Stephan, Gunter. 1988. “On Supergames and Folk Theorems: A Conceptual Discussion.” Came Equilibrium Modeb, vol. 2, ed. Selten, Reinhart. Game Theory in the Behavioral Sciences No. 19. Bielefeld University.Google Scholar
Hamburger, Henry. 1979. Games as Models of Social Phenomena. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Haltiwanger, John, and Waldman, Michael. 1985. “Rational Expectations and the Limits of Rationality: An Analysis of Heterogeneity.” American Economic Review 75: 326–40.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, John C. 1973a. “Games with Randomly Disturbed Payoffs: A New Rationale for Mixed-Strategy Equilibrium Points.” International Journal of Game Theory 2: 1–23.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, John C. 1973b. “Oddness of the Number of Equilibrium Points: A New Proof.” International Journal of Game Theory 2: 235–50.Google Scholar
Kreps, David, and Wilson, Robert. 1982. “Reputation and Imperfect Information.” Journal of Economic Theory 27: 253–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kydland, Finn E., and Prescott, Edward C.. 1977. “Rules Rather Than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans.” Journal of Political Economy 85: 473–91.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan, and Raiffa, Howard. 1957. Games and Decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Moulin, Herve. 1981. Game Theory for the Social Sciences. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Myerson, Roger B. 1978. “Refinements of the Nash Equilibrium Concept.” International Journal of Game Theory 7: 73–80.Google Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmusen, Eric. 1989. Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selten, Reinhard. 1975. “Reexamination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games.” International Journal of Game Theory 4: 25–55.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1989. “The Abuse of Probability in Political Analysis: The Robinson Crusoe Fallacy.” American Political Science Review 83: 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1990a. “Are Sanctions Effective? A Game Theoretic Analysis.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 34: 3–28.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1990b. Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. N.d.(a). “Penalty Has No Impact on Crime: A Game Theoretic Analysis.” Rationality and Society. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. N.d.(b). “The Effects of Fines on Regulated Industries: Game Theory vs. Decision Theory.” Journal of Theoretical Politics. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.