Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:38:54.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inspection games with long-run inspectors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2010

LUCIANO ANDREOZZI
LUCIANO ANDREOZZI*
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Trento Via Inama, 5 38100 Trento, Italy email: luciano.andreozzi@unitn.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The inspection game has been widely used as a model for crime deterrence. In this article, we shall present a broad review of the literature and an original result. The original result concerns the interaction between a single, long-run inspector and a population of short-run, boundedly rational would-be criminals. This approach gives rise to an optimal control problem that can be solved explicitly. We show that a forward-looking inspector obtains the same payoff he would obtain if he could commit to a probability of inspection. The consequences of this result for the economics of crime deterrence are also explored.

Type
Papers
Information
European Journal of Applied Mathematics , Volume 21 , Issue 4-5: Criminality , October 2010 , pp. 441 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Andreozzi, L. (2002) Oscillations in against-pollution policies. An evolutionary analysis. Homo Oeconomicus 18 (3/4), 1–23.Google Scholar
[2]Andreozzi, L. (2004) Rewarding policemen increases crime: Another surprising result from the inspection game. Public Choice 121 (1), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Arce, D. & Gun, L. B. (2005) Working well with others: The evolution of teamwork and ethics. Public Choice 123 (1–2), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Becker, G. S. (1968) Crime and punishment: An economic approach. J. Pol. Econ. 76, 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Bianco, W. T., Ordeshook, P. C. & Tsebelis, G. (1990) Crime and punishment: Are one-shot, two person games enough?. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 84 (2), 569–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Clark, C. W. (1990) Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
[7]Cox, G. (1994) A note on crime and punishment. Public Choice 78, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Cressman, R., Morrison, W. G. & Wen, J.-F. (1998) On the evolutionary dynamics of crime. Can. J. Econ. 31, 1101–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Friehe, T. (2008) Correlated payoffs in the inspection game: Some theory and an application to corruption. Public Choice 37, 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Fudenberg, D. & Levine, D. K. (1989) Reputation and equilibrium selection in games with a patient player. Econometrica 57 (4), 759–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Fudenberg, D. & Levine, D. K. (1992) Maintaining reputation when strategies are imperfectly observed. Rev. Econ. Stud. 59, 561–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Fudenberg, D. & Levine, D. K. (1998) The Theory of Learning in Games, MIT Press.Google Scholar
[13]Graetz, M., Reinganum, J. & Wilde, L. (1986) The tax compliance game: Toward and interactive theory of law enforcement. J. Law Econ. Organ. 2 (1), 1–32.Google Scholar
[14]Harsanyi, J. C. (1966) A general theory of rational behavior in game situations. Econometrica 34, 613–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Harsanyi, J. C. (1977) Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Hirshleifer, J. & Rasmussen, E. (1992) Are equilibrium strategies unaffected by incentives? J. Theor. Pol. 4 (3), 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Holler, M. J. (1990) The unprofitability of mixed-strategy equilibria: A second folk-theorem. Econ. Lett. 32 (4), 319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Holler, M. J. (1992) Fighting pollution when decisions are strategic. Public Choice 76, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Kamien, M. & Schwartz, N. L. (1981) Dynamic optimization. The Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control in Economics and Management, North-Holland, New York.Google Scholar
[20]Mailath, G. J. & Samuelson, L. (2006) Repeated Games and Reputations: Long-Run Relationships, Oxford University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Pradiptyo, R. (2007) Does punishment matter? A refinement of the inspection game. In: Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 3(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Saha, A. & Poole, G. (2000) The economics of crime and punishment: An analysis of optimal penalty. Econ. Lett. 68, 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Takayama, A. (1985) Mathematical Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
[24]Tsebelis, G. (1990) Penalty has no impact on crime: A game theoretic analysis. Ration. Soc. 2 (3), 255–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25]Tsebelis, G. (1990) Are sanctions effective? A game theoretic analysis. J. Conflict Resol. 34 (1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26]Weibull, J. W. (1995) Evolutionary Game Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
[27]Wittman, D. (1985) Counter-intuitive results in game theory. Eur. J. Pol. Econ. 1, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[28]Wittman, D. (1993) Nash equilibrium vs. maximin: A comparative static analysis. Eur. J. Pol. Econ. 9, 559–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar