IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v274y2019i2p627-637.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incorporating monitoring technology and on-site inspections into an n-person inspection game

Author

Listed:
  • Deutsch, Yael
  • Goldberg, Noam
  • Perlman, Yael

Abstract

A two-stage game between an inspector and multiple inspectees is modeled in which the inspector may choose to invest in a monitoring technology in the first stage to supplement the inspector’s subsequent inspection strategy in the second-stage simultaneous game. The game is motivated by an environmental regulator that has a limited budget for monitoring and inspecting several industrial enterprises, each with an incentive to pollute. A monitoring technology may alter the payoffs of the second-stage game, by making inspection more efficient and by altering the inspectees’ payoffs so as to increase the effect of deterrence. Computation of Nash equilibria is challenging for nonzero sum games in general and also challenging in our case as the utility function of the inspector is nonconcave in its actions. Using the special structure of our game we develop an algorithm to efficiently determine Nash equilibria. We then derive some managerial insights by applying the algorithm to several examples and examining the Nash equilibria, including a counterintuitive outcome that the addition of monitoring technology may cause more inspectees to pollute than would otherwise.

Suggested Citation

  • Deutsch, Yael & Goldberg, Noam & Perlman, Yael, 2019. "Incorporating monitoring technology and on-site inspections into an n-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 627-637.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:274:y:2019:i:2:p:627-637
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.10.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221718308634
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.10.012?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. Bernhard von Stengel, 2016. "Recursive Inspection Games," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(3), pages 935-952, August.
    2. Luciano Andreozzi, 2004. "Rewarding Policemen Increases Crime. Another Surprising Result from the Inspection Game," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(1), pages 69-82, October.
    3. Deutsch, Yael & Golany, Boaz & Rothblum, Uriel G., 2011. "Determining all Nash equilibria in a (bi-linear) inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(2), pages 422-430, December.
    4. Rudolf Avenhaus & D. Marc Kilgour, 2004. "Efficient distributions of arms‐control inspection effort," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 1-27, February.
    5. Rudolf Avenhaus & Morton J. Canty, 2011. "Deterrence, technology, and the sensible distribution of arms control verification resources," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 295-303, April.
    6. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany, 2016. "Multiple agents finitely repeated inspection game with dismissals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 7-26, February.
    7. Noam Goldberg, 2017. "Non‐zero‐sum nonlinear network path interdiction with an application to inspection in terror networks," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 139-153, March.
    8. Laurent Franckx, 2005. "Environmental Enforcement with Endogenous Ambient Monitoring," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(2), pages 195-220, February.
    9. Hohzaki, Ryusuke, 2007. "An inspection game with multiple inspectees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(3), pages 894-906, May.
    10. Tsebelis, George, 1989. "The Abuse of Probability in Political Analysis: The Robinson Crusoe Fallacy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(1), pages 77-91, March.
    11. Michael Maschler, 1966. "A price leadership method for solving the inspector's non‐constant‐sum game," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 11-33, March.
    12. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany & Noam Goldberg & Uriel G. Rothblum, 2013. "Inspection games with local and global allocation bounds," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(2), pages 125-140, March.
    13. Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2017. "Attacking the unknown weapons of a potential bomb builder: The impact of intelligence on the strategic interaction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 177-189.
    14. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany, 2016. "Multiple agents finitely repeated inspection game with dismissals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 7-26, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karimi-Mamaghan, Maryam & Mohammadi, Mehrdad & Jula, Payman & Pirayesh, Amir & Ahmadi, Hadi, 2020. "A learning-based metaheuristic for a multi-objective agile inspection planning model under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(2), pages 513-537.
    2. Deutsch, Yael, 2021. "A polynomial-time method to compute all Nash equilibria solutions of a general two-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 1036-1052.

    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. Deutsch, Yael, 2021. "A polynomial-time method to compute all Nash equilibria solutions of a general two-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 1036-1052.
    2. Dong, Xiaoqing & Li, Chaolin & Li, Ji & Wang, Jia & Huang, Wantao, 2010. "A game-theoretic analysis of implementation of cleaner production policies in the Chinese electroplating industry," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1442-1448.
    3. Ederlina Ganatuin‐Nocon & Tyrone Ang, 2020. "Revisiting inspection game and inspector leadership through reaction networks," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(6), pages 438-452, September.
    4. Fandel, G. & Trockel, J., 2013. "Avoiding non-optimal management decisions by applying a three-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 85-93.
    5. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany, 2019. "Securing Gates of a Protected Area: A Hybrid Game and Queueing Theory Modeling Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 31-45, March.
    6. John Bone & Dominic Spengler, 2014. "Does Reporting Decrease Corruption?," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 26(1-2), pages 161-186, January.
    7. Berno Buechel & Eike Emrich & Stefanie Pohlkamp, 2016. "Nobody’s Innocent," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 17(8), pages 767-789, December.
    8. Stefanos Leonardos & Costis Melolidakis, 2018. "On the Commitment Value and Commitment Optimal Strategies in Bimatrix Games," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-28, September.
    9. Dominic Spengler, 2012. "Endogenising Detection in an Asymmetric Penalties Corruption Game," Discussion Papers 12/20, Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Guzmán, Cristóbal & Riffo, Javiera & Telha, Claudio & Van Vyve, Mathieu, 2022. "A sequential Stackelberg game for dynamic inspection problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 727-739.
    11. Roland Kirstein, 2014. "Doping, the Inspection Game, and Bayesian Enforcement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 15(4), pages 385-409, August.
    12. Gianfranco Gambarelli & Daniele Gervasio & Francesca Maggioni & Daniel Faccini, 2022. "A Stackelberg game for the Italian tax evasion problem," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 295-307, June.
    13. Kirstein, Roland, 2005. "Bayesian Monitoring," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 2005-06, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
    14. Spengler Dominic, 2014. "Endogenous Detection of Collaborative Crime: The Case of Corruption," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 201-217, July.
    15. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany, 2016. "Multiple agents finitely repeated inspection game with dismissals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 7-26, February.
    16. Buechel, Berno & Emrich, Eike & Pohlkamp, Stefanie, 2013. "Nobody's innocent: the role of customers in the doping dilemma," MPRA Paper 44627, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Stamatios Katsikas & Vassili Kolokoltsov & Wei Yang, 2016. "Evolutionary Inspection and Corruption Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-25, October.
    18. Puneet Agarwal & Kyle Hunt & Shivasubramanian Srinivasan & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Fire Code Inspection and Compliance: A Game-Theoretic Model Between Fire Inspection Agencies and Building Owners," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 208-226, September.
    19. Manfred J. Holler & Barbara Klose-Ullmann, 2008. "Wallenstein’s Power Problem and Its Consequences," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 2(3), pages 197-218, December.
    20. Guy Elaad & Artyom Jelnov, 2018. "Cheating in a contest with strategic inspection," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 375-387, October.

    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:eee:ejores:v:274:y:2019:i:2:p:627-637. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.