4.7 Article

Evolutionary Games and Dynamics in Public Goods Supply with Repetitive Actions

期刊

MATHEMATICS
卷 9, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/math9151726

关键词

public goods; evolutionary game; repeated game; dynamics; ESS

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [11271098]
  2. Guizhou Provincial Science and Technology Fund [[2019]1067]
  3. Fundamental Funds for Introduction of Talents of Guizhou University [[2017]59]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study constructs a tripartite repeated game model to analyze the evolution mechanism of suppliers, consumers, and government in the public goods market. It finds stable equilibrium points and verifies the impact of penalty coefficients and discount factors on strategy stability through numerical simulation. The research results provide a reference for decision-making by government, suppliers, and consumers in the public goods supply chain.
Based on a tripartite game model among suppliers of public goods, consumers, and the government, a tripartite repeated game model is constructed to analyze the evolution mechanism of which suppliers supply at low prices, consumers purchase, and the government provides incentives, and to establish the dynamics system of a repeated game. The equilibrium points of the evolutionary game are solved, and among them, the equilibrium points are found to satisfy the parameter conditions of ESS. The numerical simulation is employed to verify the impact of penalty coefficients and discount factors on the stability of strategies, which are adopted by the three players in a tripartite repeated game on public goods, and scenario analyses are conducted. The research results of this paper could provide a reference for the government, suppliers, and consumers to make rapid decisions, who are in the supply chain of public goods, especially quasi-public goods, such as coal, water, electricity, and gas, and help them to obtain stable incomes and then ensure the stable operation of the market.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据