合作的原因 Reasons for Cooperation

Loading...

En provenance du cours de Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU)

竞争策略（中文版）

419 notes

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU)

竞争策略（中文版）

419 notes

This is a Chinese version of Competitive Strategy. You can find the original course in English from our course catalog. 此版本是Coursera首次尝试推出的中文翻译版。课程视频为英文原版附中文字幕，课程页面和测验已译成中文，帮助中心提供中文支持。在本课程（共六个模块）中，你将了解企业在战略决策相互依存的情况下如何行事。例如，你的行动会如何影响竞争对手的利润，反之亦然。我们将会借助博弈论的基本工具分析企业如何选择策略以获得竞争优势。

À partir de la leçon

企业为何要合作 Why Firms Work Together

根据经济学理论，企业会在市场上相互竞争。实际上，他们也常常进行友好合作。在本模块中，我们将尝试了解为什么合作会给相关企业带来好处，借此评估促进或阻碍合作的因素并将其应用到不同示例中。

合作的原因 Reasons for Cooperation3:02

Rencontrer les enseignants

Tobias Kretschmer
Professor
Institute for Strategy, Technology and Organization

So welcome back.

In our first lecture we've learned how to find optimal decisions in a strategic

game. These decisions often maximize our own

profits but they harm the competitor at the same time.

So in this video, I will introduce you to situations in which companies are

actually better off by cooperating with each other.

And why would firms want to cooperate in the first place.

Sometimes, quite simply, competition is not in the company's best interest.

Remember the last session. We had Sensodyne and Colgate deciding to

advertise or not to advertise. We found that the Nash Equilibrium in

such a game is for both firms to advertise, even though both knew that

they could be better off if they agreed not to advertise.

But each of the players, Sensodyne and Colgate, has an individual incentive to

actually not stick to that agreement and advertise anyway.

So the Nash Equilibrium here is an outcome that's not efficient

and it doesn't maximize both players profits.

So that's one situation in which cooperation can actually be a good thing.

Another situation is that, sometimes companies simply need each other.

And we recall the example that we discussed the last time, where Sony and

Philips had to agree on a standard for the compact disc.

And there were two standards available. There was the Sony standard and the

Philips standard, and both of them wanted to coordinate on one of those two.

But it wasn't clear if they were going to settle on this one, or on that one.

And they needed the cooperative behavior or the coordination between

these two players to settle on one of those.

So, in these situations cooperation can help avoid inefficient solutions.

So in this session, we're going to deal with a question or the problem of how to

achieve cooperation between individual profit maximizers.

The mechanisms we're going to take a closer look at are, repeated games.

So we play a prisoner's dilemma not just a single time, but a repeated number of

times. And we'll look at commitment, where we

can settle on a course of action before the other firm has done it.

We've just learned that companies that face a prisoner's dilemma or play a

coordination game, are often better off if they cooperate with each other or,

somehow, can coordinate their behavior. Now, this sounds simple in theory, but

it's hard to sustain given that our firms are selfish, individual, profit

maximizers. So if games are played repeatedly or

players commit to certain strategies, this can help enabling cooperation.

So in the following videos, we'll have a closer look at these mechanisms.

So stay tuned and see you in a second.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play