Solutions to Chapter 10 Exercises

SOLVED EXERCISES

S1. False. The players are not assured that they will reach the cooperative outcome. Rollback
reasoning shows that the subgame-perfect equilibrium of a finitely played repeated prisoners’ dilemma
will entail constant cheating.

S2. (a) The payoffs are ranked as follows: high payoff from cheating (72) > cooperative payoff
(64) > defect payoff (57) > low payoff from cooperating (20). This conforms to the pattern in the text so
the game is a prisoners’ dilemma, as can also be seen in the payoff table given below:

Kid’s korner

High price Low price

High price 64, 64 20, 72
Child’s play
Low price 72, 20 57, 57

If the game is played once, the Nash equilibrium strategies are (Low, Low) and payoffs are (57, 57).

(b) Total profits at the end of four years = 4  57 = 228. Firms know that the game ends in
four years so they can look forward to the end of the game and use rollback to find that it’s best to cheat
in year 4. Similarly, it is best to cheat in each preceding year as well. It follows that it is not possible to
sustain cooperation in the finite game.

(c) The one-time gain from defecting = 72 – 64 = 8. Loss in every future period = 64 – 57 =
7. Cheating is beneficial here if the gain exceeds the present discounted value of future losses or if 8 >
7/r. Thus, r > 7/8 (or d > 8/15) makes cheating worthwhile, and r < 7/8 lets the grim strategy sustain
cooperation between the firms in the infinite version of the game. If r = 0.25, cooperation can be
sustained.

(d) Total profits after four years = 4  64 = 256. With no known end of the world, the firms
can sustain cooperation if r < 7/8 as in part (c). This answer is different from that in part (b) because the
firms see no fixed end point of the game and can’t use backward induction. Instead, they assume the
game is infinite and use the grim strategy to sustain cooperative outcome.

Games of Strategy, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2015 W. W. Norton & Company

 (e) A 10% probability of bankruptcy translates into a 90% probability that the game
continues, so p = 0.9. Then, for r = 0.25 (d = 0.8), R = 39%. This rate would need to exceed 7/8 before
cheating was worthwhile, so the firms will still cooperate in this case. For a 35% probability of
bankruptcy, p = 0.65 and R = 92%, so if bankruptcy becomes more certain, cheating becomes worthwhile.

S3. (a) Payoffs are in thousands of dollars of salary. Each manager has a dominant strategy to
expend high effort. The Nash equilibrium is (High, High) with payoffs of 150 to each. This is not a
prisoners’ dilemma because the (Low, Low) outcome does not provide the managers with higher salaries
than they receive in the Nash equilibrium:

(b) Manager 2

Managers still Low effort High effort have a

dominant Low effort 100, 100 80, 200 strategy to
Manager 1
expend high High effort 200, 80 150, 150 effort, so the
Nash equilibrium is
still (High, High), but payoffs are now 90 to each in that equilibrium. The payoffs from the (Low, Low)
outcome are now better than those achieved in the Nash equilibrium; this game is a prisoners’ dilemma:

(c) Manager 2 In this

version of the Low effort High effort game, there
are two Nash Low effort 100, 100 80, 140 equilibria at
(High, Low) Manager 1 and (Low,
High effort 140, 80 90, 90
High). The game is now
Chicken rather than a prisoners’ dilemma:

Manager 2

Low effort High effort

S4. (a) The
Low effort 100, 100 80, 120
game tree Manager 1 below shows
payoffs in the High effort 120, 80 70, 70 order (You,
Friend). The rollback equilibrium is shown by making the chosen branches thicker at each node; the
equilibrium is (Don’t invest, Cheat if invest):

Games of Strategy, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2015 W. W. Norton & Company

 (b) In the repeated version, honesty could be sustained by a “grim trigger strategy,” where if
your friend ever cheats you, you will never invest with him again. The friend can get an extra $120 = 130
– 10 any one time, but will lose $10 every time thereafter. Then he will not cheat you if 10 > 120r, or r <
10/120 = 8.33%. Then 100(1 + r) < 120 is also true, so it is optimal for you to invest in your friend’s
business so long as he is following the equilibrium strategy, that is, not cheating first.
(c) If the rate of interest is 10%, the above agreement cannot be sustained. Suppose an
alternative agreement is that your friend gets x and you get 130 – x. By cheating you once, he can get an
extra 130 – x, but will lose x each period thereafter. He will not cheat you if x > 0.1(130 – x), or 1.1x > 13,
or x > 13/1.1. So x = 12 will do. Note that this still leaves you a return of $118 for your $100, which is
adequate when the rate of interest is 10%.

S5. (a) One manager is designated to choose High and the other Low. The High chooser makes a
side payment to the Low chooser so that each gets [(200 – 60) + 80]/2 = 110 each period. The necessary
side payment is 30 (thousand).
(b) Defection entails refusing to make the side payment, so the cheater gets an extra 30 for
one period. But then the game collapses to the single-shot Nash equilibrium in which payoffs are 90 to
each manager, so the cost of cheating is 110 – 90 = 20 each subsequent period. Defection is beneficial if
30 > 20/r, or if r > 2/3 = 66.67%. This is unlikely to be the case.

S6. In the k < 1 case, (Swerve, Swerve) maximizes the player’s joint payoff. Maintaining this type of
cooperation, however, is essentially impossible. This game differs from a prisoners’ dilemma because a
cheater in a prisoners’ dilemma can rationally expect retaliation. When one player establishes a pattern of

Games of Strategy, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2015 W. W. Norton & Company

playing Defect, it is individually optimal for the other player also to play Defect. Therefore, a potential
cheater must compare the immediate gain from cheating with the future loss from the breakdown of
cooperation.
In this Chicken game, in contrast, if one driver succeeds in being the first to drive Straight (and
will continue to do so), it is not rational for the other driver to retaliate; if James is going Straight, Dean’s
best response is to Swerve. James can thus lock in an outcome in which he achieves his most preferred
result. Thus, any attempt to establish a pattern of (Swerve, Swerve) outcomes is likely to break down as
each player tries to be the first to establish that he will choose Straight.
In the k > 1 case, a pattern in which each player alternates between Swerve and Straight is, once
established, almost certain to last. Both (Swerve, Straight) and (Straight, Swerve) are Nash equilibria in a
single-play game. Thus, once the pattern of alternating actions has been established, neither driver can
gain by deviating from it.
One difficulty that is likely to arise in this situation is in determining who gets the k payoff (and
who gets the –1 payoff) in the first round. With either discounting or an uncertain end to the game (or an
odd number of rounds), the player who drives Straight in the first round will have an advantage; if both
players attempt to get this advantage, the alternating pattern may be hard to establish. Of course, either
player would prefer to always drive Straight, while having the other driver respond by choosing Swerve.
This “Always Straight” strategy, however, is not optimal if you expect the other driver to alternate.

S7. (a) The joint profit of South Korea and Japan is

πTotal = πK + πJ = (P – c) * Q = (180 – Q – 30) * Q = 150Q – Q2,

which is maximized at Q = 75.

(b) When each country i produces half of the Q found in part (a), each will earn
πi = (P – c) * qi = (180 – 75 – 30) * 37.5 = 2,812.5.
(c) Assume that Korea decides to defect. (Because the per-unit costs are the same, the answer
will be identical if it is Japan that decides to defect.) Given that Japan is cooperating, Korea’s profit
funtion is
πK = (P – c) * qK = (180 – 37.5 – qK – 30) * qK = 112.5qK – (qK)2,
which is maximized at qK = 56.25. The resulting profit for Korea in that year is
112.5 * 56.25 – (56.25)2 = 3,164.0625.
Japan’s profits will be

Games of Strategy, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2015 W. W. Norton & Company

 (180 – 37.5 – 56.25 – 30) * 37.5 = 2,109.375.
(d) Each year, Korea and Japan are playing following game (rounding to the nearest tenth
and assuming that when both defect each knows the other is also defecting, so that in that case they play
their Nash strategies):

Japan

Cooperate Defect
Cooperate 2,812.5, 2,812.5 2,109.4, 3,164
Korea
Defect 3,164, 2,109.4 2,500, 2,500

(e) The one-time gain from cheating is 3,164 – 2,812.5 = 351.5. The loss in each subsequent
year is 2,812.5 – 2,500 = 312.5. If each country is using a grim-trigger strategy, to sustain cooperation the
interest rate r needs to satisfy 351.5r < 312.5, or r < 88.9%.

Games of Strategy, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2015 W. W. Norton & Company