IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bie/wpaper/18.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The chain store paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Selten, Reinhard

    (Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University)

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Selten, Reinhard, 2017. "The chain store paradox," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 18, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    • Handle: RePEc:bie:wpaper:18
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/download/2909633/2911217
    File Function: First Version, 1974
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lester B. Lave, 1962. "An Empirical Approach to the Prisoners' Dilemma Game," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 76(3), pages 424-436.
    2. Melvin Guyer & John Fox & Henry Hamburger, 1973. "Format Effects in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 17(4), pages 719-744, December.
    3. Reinhard Selten, 1973. "A Simple Model of Imperfect Competition, where 4 are Few and 6 are Many," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 008, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    4. Reinhard Selten, 1974. "The Chain Store Paradox," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 018, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    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. Maier-Rigaud, Frank P. & Apesteguia, José, 2003. "The Role of Choice in Social Dilemma Experiments," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 22/2003, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    2. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    3. Gärtner, D.L. & Zhou, J., 2012. "Delays in Leniency Application : Is There Really a Race to the Enforcer’s Door?," Other publications TiSEM cbb8fac0-0cd7-4a0c-a6d4-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Hammond, Peter J., 1999. "Non-Archimedean subjective probabilities in decision theory and games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 139-156, September.
    5. Ulrich Blum & Nicole Steinat & Michael Veltins, 2008. "On the rationale of leniency programs: a game-theoretical analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 209-229, June.
    6. Haltiwanger, John & Waldman, Michael, 1991. "Responders versus Non-responders: A New Perspective on Heterogeneity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(408), pages 1085-1102, September.
    7. Zhou, Jun, 2011. "Evaluating Leniency with Missing Information on Undetected Cartels: Exploring Time-Varying Policy Impacts on Cartel Duration," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 353, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    8. Huck, Steffen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Oechssler, Jorg, 2004. "Two are few and four are many: number effects in experimental oligopolies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 435-446, April.
    9. Hackl, Franz & Kummer, Michael E. & Winter-Ebmer, Rudolf & Zulehner, Christine, 2014. "Market structure and market performance in E-commerce," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 199-218.
    10. János Flesch & Jeroen Kuipers & Ayala Mashiah-Yaakovi & Gijs Schoenmakers & Eilon Solan & Koos Vrieze, 2010. "Perfect-Information Games with Lower-Semicontinuous Payoffs," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 742-755, November.
    11. Fabian Dvorak & Regina Stumpf & Sebastian Fehrler & Urs Fischbacher, 2024. "Generative AI Triggers Welfare-Reducing Decisions in Humans," Papers 2401.12773, arXiv.org.
    12. 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.
    13. Kreps, David M. & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Reputation and imperfect information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 253-279, August.
    14. Inderst, Roman & Wey, Christian, 2004. "The incentives for takeover in oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(8-9), pages 1067-1089, November.
    15. Yasuhiro Sakai, 2016. "Information Exchanges among Firms and Their Welfare Implications (Part 2) : Alternative Duopoly Models with Different Types of Risks," Discussion Papers CRR Discussion Paper Series A: General 17, Shiga University, Faculty of Economics,Center for Risk Research.
    16. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 2008. "Reputation And Equilibrium Selection In Games With A Patient Player," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine (ed.), A Long-Run Collaboration On Long-Run Games, chapter 7, pages 123-142, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. K. Schmidt, 1999. "Reputation and Equilibrium Characterization in Repeated Games of Conflicting Interests," Levine's Working Paper Archive 626, David K. Levine.
    18. Greiner, Ben & Vittoria Levati, M., 2005. "Indirect reciprocity in cyclical networks: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 711-731, October.
    19. Kesternich, Iris & Schumacher, Heiner & Van Biesebroeck, Johannes & Grant, Iris, 2020. "Market size and competition: A “hump-shaped” result," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    20. Okada, Akira, 1991. "Lexicographic Domination in Extensive Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 20(2), pages 95-108.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bie:wpaper:18. 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: Bettina Weingarten (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/imbiede.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.