The 1.5th Mover Advantage

Joachim Henkel ()

RAND Journal of Economics, 2002, vol. 33, issue 1, 156-170

Abstract: There has been much discussion about the timing of moves in games. However, one assumption usually goes unquestioned, namely, that of an irrevocable commitment of the first mover. In many cases this is not realistic, since final commitments are often preceded by actions that are binding only to a limited degree: partial commitments. An example is the announcements of price changes. I analyze a game in which the degree of a partial commitment is endogenized. In the case of strategic complements, a player profitably makes use of the possibility to commit partly. She chooses a role somewhere between first and second mover, which gives her a 1.5th-mover advantage.

Date: 2002
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:rje:randje:v:33:y:2002:i:spring:p:156-170

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://editorialexp ... i-bin/rje_online.cgi

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in RAND Journal of Economics from The RAND Corporation
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().