IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejtec/v16y2016i2p797-816n14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Building Reputation in a War of Attrition Game: Hawkish or Dovish Stance?

Author

Listed:
  • Özyurt Selçuk

    (Department of Economics, Harvard University, 1805 Cambridge St. Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Sabancı University, Orhanli Tuzla 34956, Istanbul, Turkey)

Abstract

This paper examines a two-player war of attrition game in continuous-time, where (1) fighting (i. e., escalating the conflict) is costless for a player unless he quits, (2) at any point in time, each player can attack to his opponent and finalize the game with a costly war, (3) there is two-sided uncertainty regarding the players’ resolve, and (4) each player can choose his tone/stance (either hawkish or dovish) at the beginning of the game, which affects his quitting cost. The results imply that choosing hawkish (dovish) regime is optimal if and only if the benefit-cost ratio of the dispute is sufficiently high (low). If hawkish tone is going to give a player upper hand in a dispute, then choosing a more aggressive tone does not increase his payoff. However, choosing a more dovish tone increases a player’s payoff whenever dovish regime is optimal.

Suggested Citation

  • Özyurt Selçuk, 2016. "Building Reputation in a War of Attrition Game: Hawkish or Dovish Stance?," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 797-816, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejtec:v:16:y:2016:i:2:p:797-816:n:14
    DOI: 10.1515/bejte-2015-0093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejte-2015-0093
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/bejte-2015-0093?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janusz A. Ordover & Ariel Rubinstein, 1986. "A Sequential Concession Game with Asymmetric Information," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(4), pages 879-888.
    2. Alp E. Atakan & Mehmet Ekmekci, 2014. "Bargaining and Reputation in Search Markets," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(1), pages 1-29.
    3. Ponsati C. & Sakovics, J., 1996. "The war of attrition with incomplete information," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 54-54, February.
    4. Smith, Alastair, 1998. "International Crises and Domestic Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(3), pages 623-638, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maxime Menuet & Petros G. Sekeris, 2021. "Overconfidence and conflict," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1483-1499, October.
    2. Asako Yasushi, 2015. "One-Sided Games in a War of Attrition," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 313-331, July.
    3. David P. Myatt, 2005. "Instant Exit from the Asymmetric War of Attrition," Economics Series Working Papers 160, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    4. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Eliaz, Kfir, 2015. "Strategic disclosure of feasible options," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 145-165.
    5. Send, Jonas & Serena, Marco, 2022. "An empirical analysis of insistent bargaining," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. John Tyson Chatagnier, 2015. "Conflict bargaining as a signal to third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 237-268, April.
    7. Michael Horowitz & Rose McDermott & Allan C. Stam, 2005. "Leader Age, Regime Type, and Violent International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 661-685, October.
    8. Sambuddha Ghosh & Gabriele Gratton & Caixia Shen, 2019. "Intimidation: Linking Negotiation And Conflict," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 60(4), pages 1589-1618, November.
    9. Sanktjohanser, Anna, 2022. "Optimally Stubborn," TSE Working Papers 22-1367, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    10. Jonas Send & Marco Serena, 2021. "An Empirical Analysis of Stubborn Bargaining," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2021-05, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    11. Bingchao Huangfu & Gagan Ghosh & Heng Liu, 2023. "Resource inequality in the war of attrition," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(1), pages 33-61, March.
    12. Thomas Jensen & Andreas Madum, 2014. "Partisan Optimism and Political Bargaining," Discussion Papers 14-05, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    13. Thomas Jensen & Andreas Madum, 2017. "Partisan optimism and political bargaining," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(2), pages 191-213, April.
    14. Helena Hye-Young Kim & Frand Spinnewyn, 2007. "Escalation Game with Endogenous Demands and The Nash Bargaining Solution," Discussion Paper Series 0709, Institute of Economic Research, Korea University.
    15. Jesse C. Johnson, 2016. "Alliance treaty obligations and war intervention," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(5), pages 451-468, November.
    16. Enache, Andreea & Florens, Jean-Pierre, 2024. "Quantile analysis of “hazard-rate” game models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 238(2).
    17. Adam Meirowitz & Massimo Morelli & Kristopher W. Ramsay & Francesco Squintani, 2019. "Dispute Resolution Institutions and Strategic Militarization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 378-418.
    18. Maxime Menuet & Petros G. Sekeris, 2022. "Engaging in Wars of Attrition," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 147, pages 79-100.
    19. Scott Wolford, 2020. "War and diplomacy on the world stage: Crisis bargaining before third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(2), pages 235-261, April.
    20. Anna Sanktjohanser, 2020. "Optimally Stubborn," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2255, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    war of attrition game; continuous time games; reputation; dispute resolution;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bejtec:v:16:y:2016:i:2:p:797-816:n:14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.