IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i5p2294-d1606595.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on Stochastic Evolution Game of Green Technology Innovation Alliance of Government, Industry, University, and Research with Fuzzy Income

Author

Listed:
  • Qing Zhong

    (School of Ethnology and History, Guizhou Minzu University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Haiyang Cui

    (School of Ethnology and History, Guizhou Minzu University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Mei Yang

    (School of Mathematics and Statistics, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Cheng Ling

    (School of Economics, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

Abstract

At present, the high complexity of the environment, the uncertainty of income, and the choice of strategies have attracted extensive attention from all walks of life who are committed to studying the game of collaborative innovation between government and industry–university–research. Based on this, first of all, with the help of stochastic evolutionary game theory and fuzzy theory, this paper constructs a multi-party stochastic evolutionary game model of green technology innovation about the government guidelines and the joint promotion of industry, universities, and research institutes. Secondly, it discusses the evolution law of behavior strategies of each game subject and the main factors to maintain the alliance’s stability under fuzzy income. The numerical simulation results show the following: (1) Reputation gains have a significant positive correlation with the evolution stability of alliance behavior, and the incorporation of reputation gains or losses will effectively maintain the cooperation stability of the alliance. (2) Under the influence of product greenness, government subsidies, and long-term benefits, it will promote the pace consistency of cooperative decision-making between industry, universities, and research institutes, and accelerate the evolution of alliances. (3) The enterprise’s ability and the research party’s ability will restrict each other. When one party’s ability is low, its willingness to choose a cooperation strategy may be slightly low due to technology spillover and other reasons. When the two parties’ abilities match, their behavior strategies will increase their willingness to cooperate with their abilities. Compared with the traditional evolutionary game, this study fully considers the uncertainty of the environment and provides theoretical support and practical guidance for the high-quality development strategy of the industry–university–research green technology innovation alliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Qing Zhong & Haiyang Cui & Mei Yang & Cheng Ling, 2025. "Research on Stochastic Evolution Game of Green Technology Innovation Alliance of Government, Industry, University, and Research with Fuzzy Income," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2294-:d:1606595
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2294/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2294/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cabrales, Antonio, 2000. "Stochastic Replicator Dynamics," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 41(2), pages 451-481, May.
    2. Binmore, Ken, 2007. "Playing for Real: A Text on Game Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195300574, Decembrie.
    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. Ponti, Giovanni, 2000. "Cycles of Learning in the Centipede Game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 115-141, January.
    2. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2008. "Noncooperative foundations of bargaining power in committees and the Shapley-Shubik index," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 341-353, May.
    3. Gale, John & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Samuelson, Larry, 1995. "Learning to be imperfect: The ultimatum game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 56-90.
    4. Ian Gregory‐Smith, 2021. "Wages And Labor Productivity: Evidence From Injuries In The National Football League," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(2), pages 829-847, April.
    5. Desiree A. Desierto & John V. C. Nye, 2011. "When do Formal Rules and Informal Norms Converge?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(4), pages 613-629, December.
    6. van Koten, Silvester & Ortmann, Andreas, 2013. "Structural versus behavioral remedies in the deregulation of electricity markets: An experimental investigation motivated by policy concerns," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 256-265.
    7. Plan, Asaf, 2023. "Symmetry in n-player games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    8. Binmore, Ken, 2010. "Interpersonal comparison in egalitarian societies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 294-301, September.
    9. Ponti, Giovanni, 2000. "Continuous-time evolutionary dynamics: theory and practice," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 187-214, June.
    10. Feltovich, Nick & Swierzbinski, Joe, 2011. "The role of strategic uncertainty in games: An experimental study of cheap talk and contracts in the Nash demand game," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 554-574, May.
    11. Egbert, Henrik, 2017. "The Gift and the Centipede," MPRA Paper 80324, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Lauren Larrouy & Guilhem Lecouteux, 2017. "Mindreading and endogenous beliefs in games," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 318-343, July.
    13. Weibull, Jorgen W., 1998. "Evolution, rationality and equilibrium in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 641-649, May.
    14. Rusch, Hannes, 2019. "The evolution of collaboration in symmetric 2×2-games with imperfect recognition of types," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 118-127.
    15. Borgers, Tilman & Sarin, Rajiv, 1997. "Learning Through Reinforcement and Replicator Dynamics," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 1-14, November.
    16. Becchetti, Leonardo & Fiaschetti, Maurizio & Marini, Giancarlo, 2012. "Card Games and Financial Crises," AICCON Working Papers 115-2012, Associazione Italiana per la Cultura della Cooperazione e del Non Profit.
    17. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2018. "How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 320-334.
    18. Samadi, Ali Hussein & Montakhab, Afshin & Marzban, Hussein & Owjimehr, Sakine, 2018. "Quantum Barro–Gordon game in monetary economics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 489(C), pages 94-101.
    19. Giovanni Ponti & Robert M. Seymour, "undated". "Conventions and Social Mobility in Bargaining Situations," ELSE working papers 034, ESRC Centre on Economics Learning and Social Evolution.
    20. Sergei Belkov & Igor V. Evstigneev & Thorsten Hens, 2020. "An evolutionary finance model with a risk-free asset," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 593-607, December.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2294-:d:1606595. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.