1988
DOI: 10.2307/2526827
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The War of Attrition in Continuous Time with Complete Information

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

3
133
0
6

Year Published

1992
1992
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 167 publications
(142 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
3
133
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, the payoff to the leader strictly decreases as time progresses, i.e., conceding early is better than conceding late. Hendricks et al [3] axiomatize and analyze a general setting of complete information WoA. Our game violates one crucial axiom of [3]: in our game, the payoff to the leader does not decrease with time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Furthermore, the payoff to the leader strictly decreases as time progresses, i.e., conceding early is better than conceding late. Hendricks et al [3] axiomatize and analyze a general setting of complete information WoA. Our game violates one crucial axiom of [3]: in our game, the payoff to the leader does not decrease with time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…If the game is played under complete information -except regarding the type of EU -and using only pure strategies, then there will be no substantial delay. Instead the losing player will give up right away rather than enduring any delay (Hendricks et al, 1988). In settings of incomplete information, the game may feature some delay (Alesina and Drazen, 1991).…”
Section: Solution With Eu Conditionalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reasoning of lemma (3) is the common intuition behind the war of attrition where the player that can establish that he is willing to wait longer -either by demonstrating his ability to wait (incomplete information) or because his ability to wait is known (complete information) -wins the game after the second player realises the first one's ability to hold out longer and maximises his payoff by giving up right away (see Bliss and Nalebuff, 1984;Alesina and Drazen, 1991;Hendricks et al, 1988). The basic reasoning of lemma (3) can thus be summarised by the function h =t g −t f − 1, which, for positive values, says that the government is winning, and for negative values says that the firms are winning.…”
Section: Solution With Eu Conditionalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…On the one hand there is the literature on mainly deterministic timing problems in continuous time that is inspired by a wide range of applications, such as preemption models in economics (e.g., Fudenberg and Tirole (1985); Hendricks and Wilson (1992)) or wars of attrition in biology or economics as well (e.g., Hendricks et al (1988)). These classes of models are quite stylized with a systematic first or second-mover advantage.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%