Brian Roberson

PORK‐BARREL POLITICS, TARGETABLE POLICIES, AND FISCAL FEDERALISM

This article utilizes a simple model of redistributive politics with jurisdictional specific local projects to analyze the inefficiencies that arise under differing levels of targetability in both taxes/transfers and local projects. The ability to tactically target taxes/transfers and/or local projects leads political parties to engage in pandering to favored groups. However, in equilibrium, we find that greater targetability in the set of available policies actually intensifies the competition between the political parties and so increases efficiency in the provision of local projects. (JEL: D72, H41) (c) 2008 by the European Economic Association.

Is the 50-state strategy optimal?

In 2005, the Democratic National Committee adopted the 50-state strategy in lieu of the strategy of focusing solely on battleground states. The rationale given for this move is that campaign expenditures are durable outlays that impact both current and future campaigns. This article investigates the optimality of the 50-state strategy in a simple dynamic game of campaign resource allocation in which expenditures act as a form of investment. Neither the 50-state nor the battleground-states strategy is likely to arise in equilibrium. Instead, parties employ a hybrid strategy in which non-battleground states are stochastically targeted.

The robustness of ‘enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend’ alliances

We examine a three-player, three-stage game of alliance formation followed by multi-battle conflict. There are two disjoint sets of battlefields, each of which is associated with a player who competes only within that set. The common enemy competes in both sets of battlefields. An ‘enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend’ alliance forms when the two players facing the common enemy agree on a pre-conflict transfer of resources among themselves. We examine the case in which the players may commit to binding ex post transfers (alliances with full commitment) and the case in which ex post transfers are not feasible (self-enforcing alliances). Models that utilize the lottery contest success function typically yield qualitatively different results from those arising in models with the auction contest success function. However, under both contest success functions, alliances with full commitment result in identical alliance transfers for all parameter configurations, and self-enforcing alliances yield identical transfers over a subset of the parameter space. Our results, thus, provide a partial robustness result for ‘enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend’ alliances.

Strategic Defense and Attack for Series and Parallel Reliability Systems: Comment

The contest-theoretic literature on the attack and defense of networks of targets focuses primarily on pure-strategy Nash equilibria. Hauskens 2008 European Journal of Operational Research article typifies this approach, and many of the models in this literature either build upon this model or utilize similar techniques. We show that Hauskens characterization of Nash equilibrium is invalid for much of the parameter space examined and provides necessary conditions for his solution to hold. The complete characterization of mixed-strategy equilibria remains an open problem, although there exist solutions in the literature for special prominent cases.

Generalizations of the General Lotto and Colonel Blotto Games

In this paper, we generalize the General Lotto game and the Colonel Blotto game to allow for battlefield valuations that are heterogeneous across battlefields and asymmetric across players, and for the players to have asymmetric resource constraints. We completely characterize Nash equilibrium in the generalized version of the General Lotto game and then show how this characterization can be applied to identify equilibria in the Colonel Blotto version of the game. In both games, we find that there exist sets of non-pathological parameter configurations of positive Lebesgue measure with multiple payoff nonequivalent equilibria.

THE OPTIMAL DEFENSE OF NETWORKS OF TARGETS: THE OPTIMAL DEFENSE OF NETWORKS OF TARGETS

This paper examines a game-theoretic model of attack and defense of multiple networks of targets in which there exist intra-network strategic complementarities among targets. The defender’s objective is to successfully defend all of the networks and the attacker’s objective is to successfully attack at least one network of targets. In this context, our results highlight the importance of modeling asymmetric attack and defense as a conflict between “fully” strategic actors with endogenous entry and force expenditure decisions as well as allowing for general correlation structures for force expenditures within and across the networks of targets.