IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jesaex/v10y2024i2d10.1007_s40881-023-00154-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indefinitely repeated contests with incumbency advantage

Author

Listed:
  • Cary Deck

    (The University of Alabama)

  • Zachary Dorobiala

    (The University of Alabama)

  • Paan Jindapon

    (The University of Alabama)

Abstract

We study an indefinitely repeated Tullock contest in which the stage-game winner gains an incumbency advantage in the next stage-game. The incumbent’s advantage allows the incumbent to carry over a proportion of their expenditure in the previous contest to the next contest. Theoretically, this advantage is not predicted to have a large impact on total expenditure. However, in a controlled laboratory experiment, we find the incumbency advantage increases total expenditure by a significant amount. Further, we find that carryover has a discouraging effect on challengers while encouraging incumbents react in a retaliatory manner.

Suggested Citation

  • Cary Deck & Zachary Dorobiala & Paan Jindapon, 2024. "Indefinitely repeated contests with incumbency advantage," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 232-254, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jesaex:v:10:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40881-023-00154-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40881-023-00154-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40881-023-00154-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40881-023-00154-2?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. Holtz-Eakin, Douglas & Newey, Whitney & Rosen, Harvey S, 1988. "Estimating Vector Autoregressions with Panel Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(6), pages 1371-1395, November.
    2. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2020. "Incentives in experiments with objective lotteries," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-29, March.
    3. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    4. Martin Grossmann & Helmut Dietl & Markus Lang, 2010. "Revenue Sharing and Competitive Balance in a Dynamic Contest Model," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 36(1), pages 17-36, February.
    5. David Gill & Victoria Prowse, 2014. "Gender differences and dynamics in competition: The role of luck," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 351-376, July.
    6. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    7. Mattias Polborn, 2006. "Investment under Uncertainty in Dynamic Conflicts," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(2), pages 505-529.
    8. Pamela Schmitt & Robert Shupp & Kurtis Swope & John Cadigan, 2004. "Multi-period rent-seeking contests with carryover: Theory and experimental evidence," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 187-211, November.
    9. Cooper, Russell & DeJong, Douglas V. & Forsythe, Robert & Ross, Thomas W., 1996. "Cooperation without Reputation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 187-218, February.
    10. Konrad, Kai A., 2009. "Strategy and Dynamics in Contests," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199549603.
    11. Ham, John C. & Kagel, John H. & Lehrer, Steven F., 2005. "Randomization, endogeneity and laboratory experiments: the role of cash balances in private value auctions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 175-205.
    12. Catherine Hafer, 2006. "On the Origins of Property Rights: Conflict and Productionin the State of Nature," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(1), pages 119-143.
    13. Virág, Gábor, 2009. "Efficiency and competition in the long run: The survival of the unfit," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 315-330, September.
    14. Ambroise Descamps & Changxia Ke & Lionel Page, 2022. "How success breeds success," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(1), pages 355-385, January.
    15. Baik, Kyung Hwan & Lee, Sanghack, 2000. "Two-Stage Rent-Seeking Contests with Carryovers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 103(3-4), pages 285-296, June.
    16. Pedro Dal Bó & Guillaume R. Fréchette, 2018. "On the Determinants of Cooperation in Infinitely Repeated Games: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(1), pages 60-114, March.
    17. Philip Brookins & Dmitry Ryvkin & Andrew Smyth, 2021. "Indefinitely repeated contests: An experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1390-1419, December.
    18. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    19. Windmeijer, Frank, 2005. "A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 25-51, May.
    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. Thomas Buser, 2016. "The Impact of Losing in a Competition on the Willingness to Seek Further Challenges," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3439-3449, December.
    2. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Shakun D. Mago, 2023. "Contests with revisions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(4), pages 915-954, September.
    3. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Anwesha Mukherjee & Theodore L. Turocy, 2020. "That’s the ticket: explicit lottery randomisation and learning in Tullock contests," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 405-429, April.
    4. Sheremeta, Roman, 2009. "Essays on Experimental Investigation of Lottery Contests," MPRA Paper 49888, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Fallucchi, Francesco & Renner, Elke & Sefton, Martin, 2013. "Information feedback and contest structure in rent-seeking games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 223-240.
    6. Klein, Arnd Heinrich & Schmutzler, Armin, 2021. "Incentives and motivation in dynamic contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 194-216.
    7. Fu, Qiang & Ke, Changxia & Tan, Fangfang, 2015. "“Success breeds success” or “Pride goes before a fall”?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 57-79.
    8. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Joo Young Jeon & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2018. "Property Rights And Loss Aversion In Contests," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1492-1511, July.
    9. Shakun D. Mago & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2019. "New Hampshire Effect: behavior in sequential and simultaneous multi-battle contests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 325-349, June.
    10. Florian Heine & Arno Riedl, 2025. "Let’s (Not) Escalate This! Leadership and Communication in a Group Contest," CESifo Working Paper Series 11655, CESifo.
    11. Francesco Fallucchi & Jan Niederreiter & Massimo Riccaboni, 2021. "Learning and dropout in contests: an experimental approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 245-278, March.
    12. Grossmann, Martin & Hottiger, Dieter, 2020. "Liquidity constraints and the formation of unbalanced contests," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    13. Sara Godoy & Miguel Meléndez-Jiménez & Antonio Morales, 2015. "No fight, no loss: underinvestment in experimental contest games," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 53-72, February.
    14. Qiang Fu & Changxia Ke & Fangfang Tan, 2013. ""Success Breeds Success" or "Pride Goes Before a Fall"? Teams and Individuals in Multi-contest Tournaments," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2013-06, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    15. Heng, Dyna, 2011. "Capital flows and real exchange rate: does financial development matter?," MPRA Paper 48553, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2012.
    16. Hoffmann, Magnus & Kolmar, Martin, 2017. "Distributional preferences in probabilistic and share contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-139.
    17. Donatella Gatti & Christophe Rault & Anne-Gael Vaubourg, 2012. "Unemployment and finance: how do financial and labour market factors interact?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(3), pages 464-489, July.
    18. Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gaechter, 2008. "Heterogeneous Social Preferences And The Dynamics Of Free Riding In Public Good Experiments," Discussion Papers 2008-07, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    19. Sabien Dobbelaere & Jacques Mairesse, 2010. "Comparing Micro-evidence on Rent Sharing from Three Different Approaches," NBER Working Papers 16220, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. José María ARRANZ & Carlos GARCÍA SERRANO & Virginia HERNANZ, 2013. "Active labour market policies in Spain: A macroeconomic evaluation," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 152(2), pages 327-348, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Infinitely repeated games; Tullock contests; Incumbency advantage; Laboratory experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    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:spr:jesaex:v:10:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40881-023-00154-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.