4.5 Article

Game theory and fish wars: The case of the Northeast Atlantic mackerel fishery

期刊

FISHERIES RESEARCH
卷 172, 期 -, 页码 7-16

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2015.06.022

关键词

Mackerel crisis; Non-cooperative game theory; Cooperative game theory

资金

  1. European Union [289,192]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Simple non-cooperative and cooperative game theory is used to explore the crisis involving the European Union (EU), Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands regarding the size and relative allocation of total allowable catches (TACs) in the mackerel fishery in the Northeast Atlantic. The analysis of the mackerel crisis is based on a statistical estimation of relevant functional relations, and the behavior of the players is explained using a fully specified empirical model. Simple, non-cooperative game theory shows that all players have an incentive to act non-cooperatively, a result that is robust to changes in basic assumptions regarding demand and cost functions. Thus, using the estimated parameters and functions, simple, non-cooperative game theory cannot explain the cooperative behavior of EU and Norway during the mackerel crisis. Simple cooperative game theory shows that no player has an incentive to enter a bargaining agreement by forming coalitions, a prediction that is consistent with the actual behavior of the EU, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands between 2010 and 2014 when no bargaining solution was reached. Therefore, the fact that the EU and Norway entered a bilateral agreement in 2010 and that the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands reached a bargaining solution in 2014 cannot be explained by simple cooperative game theory. However, actual behavior during the mackerel crisis can be explained by opportunity costs, including alternative fishing possibilities and regulations, rather than actual harvest costs, but we do not have information about the opportunity costs of harvesting mackerel. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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