IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/feemcl/204844.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Interaction between Player Heterogeneity and Partner Heterogeneity in Two-way Flow Strict Nash Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Charoensook, Banchongsan

Abstract

This paper brings together analyses of two-way flow Strict Nash networks under exclusive player heterogeneity assumption and exclusive partner heterogeneity assumption. This is achieved through examining how the interactions between these two assumptions influence important properties of Strict Nash networks. Built upon the findings of Billand et al (2011) and Galleotti et al (2006), which assume exclusive partner heterogeneity and exclusive player heterogeneity respectively, I provide a proposition that generalizes the results of these two models by stating that: (i) Strict Nash network consists of multiple non-empty components as in Galleotti et al (2006), and (ii) each non-empty component is a branching or Bi network as in Billand et al (2011). This proposition requires that a certain restriction on link formation cost (called Uniform Partner Ranking), which encloses exclusive partner heterogeneity and exclusive player heterogeneity as a specific case, is satisfied. In addition, this paper shows that value heterogeneity plays a relatively less important role in changing the shapes of Strict Nash networks.

Suggested Citation

  • Charoensook, Banchongsan, 2015. "On the Interaction between Player Heterogeneity and Partner Heterogeneity in Two-way Flow Strict Nash Networks," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 204844, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:feemcl:204844
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.204844
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/204844/files/NDL2015-044.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.204844?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Galeotti, Andrea & Goyal, Sanjeev & Kamphorst, Jurjen, 2006. "Network formation with heterogeneous players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 353-372, February.
    2. Pascal Billand & Christophe Bravard & Sudipta Sarangi, 2011. "Strict Nash networks and partner heterogeneity," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(3), pages 515-525, August.
    3. Billand, Pascal & Bravard, Christophe & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2012. "Existence of Nash networks and partner heterogeneity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 152-158.
    4. Hans Haller & Jurjen Kamphorst & Sudipta Sarangi, 2007. "(Non-)existence and Scope of Nash Networks," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 31(3), pages 597-604, June.
    5. Venkatesh Bala & Sanjeev Goyal, 2000. "A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1181-1230, September.
    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. Banchongsan Charoensook, 2020. "On the Interaction between Small Decay, Agent Heterogeneity and Diameter of Minimal Strict Nash Networks in Two-way Flow Model," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 21(2), pages 331-361, November.
    2. Charoensook, Banchongsan, 2017. "Violations of Uniform Partner Ranking Condition in Two-way Flow Strict Nash Networks," MPRA Paper 77961, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Charoensook, Banchongsan, 2015. "On the Interaction between Player Heterogeneity and Partner Heterogeneity in Strict Nash Networks," MPRA Paper 61205, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Billand, Pascal & Bravard, Christophe & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2012. "Existence of Nash networks and partner heterogeneity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 152-158.
    3. Kinateder, Markus & Merlino, Luca Paolo, 2022. "Local public goods with weighted link formation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 316-327.
    4. Banchongsan Charoensook, 2020. "On the Interaction between Small Decay, Agent Heterogeneity and Diameter of Minimal Strict Nash Networks in Two-way Flow Model," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 21(2), pages 331-361, November.
    5. Ping Sun & Elena Parilina, 2024. "Networks with nonordered partitioning of players: stability and efficiency with neighborhood-influenced cost topology," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 99(3), pages 271-305, June.
    6. Pascal Billand & Christophe Bravard & Sudipta Sarangi, 2011. "Resources Flows Asymmetries in Strict Nash Networks with Partner Heterogeneity," Working Papers 1108, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    7. Chenghong Luo & Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2021. "Network formation with myopic and farsighted players," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1283-1317, June.
    8. Pascal Billand & Christophe Bravard & Sudipta Sarangi & J. Kamphorst, 2011. "Confirming information flows in networks," Post-Print halshs-00672351, HAL.
    9. Gersbach, Hans & Haller, Hans, 2022. "Gainers and losers from market integration," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 32-39.
    10. Haller, Hans & Hoyer, Britta, 2019. "The common enemy effect under strategic network formation and disruption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 146-163.
    11. Pascal Billand & Christophe Bravard & Sudipta Sarangi, 2012. "On the interaction between heterogeneity and decay in two-way flow models," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 525-538, October.
    12. Goeree, Jacob K. & Riedl, Arno & Ule, Aljaz, 2009. "In search of stars: Network formation among heterogeneous agents," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 445-466, November.
    13. Pascal Billand & Christophe Bravard & Sudipta Sarangi, 2008. "Existence of Nash networks in one-way flow models," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 37(3), pages 491-507, December.
    14. Billand, Pascal & Bravard, Christophe & Kamphorst, Jurjen & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2017. "Network formation when players seek confirmation of information," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 20-31.
    15. Haller, Hans, 2012. "Network extension," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 166-172.
    16. Pietro Battiston, 2016. "Constrained Network Formation," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 2(3), pages 347-362, November.
    17. Breitmoser, Yves & Vorjohann, Pauline, 2013. "Efficient structure of noisy communication networks," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 396-409.
    18. Banchongsan Charoensook, 2022. "A Characterization of Nonminimal Nash Networks in Two-way Flow Model," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 23(2), pages 329-340, November.
    19. Sudipta Sarangi & Pascal Billand & Christophe Bravard, 2006. "Heterogeneity in Nash Networks," Departmental Working Papers 2006-18, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    20. Olaizola, By Norma & Valenciano, Federico, 2021. "Efficiency and stability in the connections model with heterogeneous nodes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 490-503.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Political Economy;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation

    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:ags:feemcl:204844. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    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.