Advertisement

Game Theory and John Forbes Nash in the History of Economic Thought

  • Güner Koç Aytekin
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

In our globalizing world, progress and innovations are recorded on behalf of the knowledge every day. In this context, very important studies have been made, and significant progress has been achieved after John von Neumann who was a genius mathematician first proposed the idea of explaining the human behavior by means of games. Game theory, having wide application range of scientific areas, has found wide application areas such as business, economics, international relations, military areas, politics, education, administration, law, and many others. Game theory has raging application possibilities in many areas; especially in the field of economic sciences and it has gone through a long development process until the present day. Therefore, in this study, the journey of the development process of game theory has been studied. In this process, important developments have taken place in the direction of the applicability of the social sciences into game theory which is focusing to take the right decisions to find the right strategies. John Forbes Nash is a major contributor to the studies in this direction among other scientists. Therefore, in this study, it has tried to put forward the critical role of John F. Nash in this process.

Keywords

Game theory Nash equilibrium Economics International trade Strategy Rational thinking Decision-making 

References

  1. Aktan, C. C., Sanver, Ö. İ., & Sanver, M. R. (2013). Oyunlar, Kurallar ve Düzen. (http://www.canaktan.org/ekonomi/oyun-teorisi/makaleler/aktan-sanver.pdf), (11.02. 2013).
  2. Akyüz, Y. (1977). Sermaye, Bölüşüm, Büyüme. Ankara: SBF.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J. (2003). Introductory remarks on the history of game theory. Games and Economic Behavior, 45(1), 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aumann, R. J., & Sergiu, H. (1992). Handbook of game theory with economic applications. Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.Google Scholar
  5. Baumol, W. J., & Jess, B. (1989). Chaos: Significance, mechanism, and economic applications. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(1), 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergstrom, T., Blume, L., & varian, H. (1986). Journal of Public Economics, 29(1986), 2549 North-Holland.Google Scholar
  7. Borch, K. H. (1968). The economics of uncertainty (pp. 109–128). Princeton: Princeton University Press, Second Printing.Google Scholar
  8. Buğdaycı, A. (1998). Capital Management - Başarının Yeni Adı. Oyun Teorisi, 6, 168–171.Google Scholar
  9. Bulutay, T. (1979). Genel Denge Kuramı, SBF, Yayın No: 434, Ankara.Google Scholar
  10. Cournot, A. A. (1838). Researches into the mathematical principles of the theory of wealth. New York: Copyright by the MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
  11. Daskalakis, C., Goldberg, P. W., & Papadimitriou, C. H. (2006). The complexity of computing a Nash equilibrium. In: Proceedings of STOC, 2006. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/papers/nashDGPjournal_ver9.pdf (21.12.2017).
  12. Doğru, Ç. (2016). Handbook of research on chaos and complexity theory in the social sciences, leader – Member exchange and transformational leadership in chaos and complexity (pp. 261–274). IGI Global.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0148-0.ch019
  13. Erdoğan, N. (1993). Uluslararası İşletmelerde Mali Risk ve Yönetimi & Çağdaş Finansman Teknikleri. Mü-Ka Matbaacılık Ltd. Şti., İstanbul.Google Scholar
  14. Eren, E., & Şahin, S. (2012). Oyun teorisinin Gelişimi ve Günümüz İktisat Paradigmasının Oluşumuna Etkileri, Hukuk ve İktisat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt 4, No 1, 2012, ISSN: 2146-0817 (Online).Google Scholar
  15. Fellman, P. V. (2007). The Nash equilibrium revisited: Chaos and complexity hidden in simplicity. Fellman Southern New Hampshire University, Manchester, NH.Google Scholar
  16. Fisunoğlu, M. (1996). Eksik Rekabet Piyasaları, İktisadın İlkeleri içinde, Ed. Ö. F. Çolak, ss 239–269, Alkım Yayınevi, Ankara.Google Scholar
  17. Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1992). Game Theory, the MIT Press,Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons, R. (1992). Game theory for applied economists. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goldberg, P. W., & Papadimitriou, C. (2008). Reducibility among equilibrium problems. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on theory of computing (STOC '06) (Vol. 2006, pp. 61–70). New York: The Association for Computing Machinery, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. http://www.canaktan.org/ekonomi/oyn-teorisi/makaleler/aktan-sanver.pdf (11.02.2013).Google Scholar
  21. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/14-12-economic-applications-of-game-theory-fall-2012/lecture-notes/MIT14_12F12_chapter6.pdf pp 83–85 (15.12.2017).Google Scholar
  22. https://web.stanford.edu/class/msande275/handouts/Win00-01/gametheory.pdf pp 1–5 (15.12.2017).Google Scholar
  23. Kreps, D. M. (1988). Notes on the theory of choice, by Westview press.Google Scholar
  24. Kreps, D. M. (1990). Game theory and economic modelling. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Leonard, R. J. (1994). Reading Cournot, reading Nash: The creation and stabilisation of the Nash equilibrium. The Econometrics Journal, 104(424), 492–511.Google Scholar
  26. Machina, M. J. (1982). Expected utility analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica, 50(2), 277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Machina, M. J. (1987). Choice under uncertainty: problems solved and unsolved. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1(1), 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mailath, G. J. (1998). Do people play Nash equilibrium? Lessons from evolutionary game theory. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVI, 1347–1374.Google Scholar
  29. Mike Walker, M. (2005). Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 1(3) 473–496. 1 September 2005.Google Scholar
  30. Myerson, R. B. (1999). Nash equilibrium and the history of economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVII, 1067–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Myerson, R. B. (1992). On the value of game theory in social science. Article in Rationality and Society, 4(1), 62–73., January 1992.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463192004001008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nash, J. F. (1950a). The bargaining problem, Econometrica, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Apr., 1950), pp. 155–162, Published by the Econometric Society. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1907266. Accessed: 06/01/2011.
  33. Nash, J. F. (1950b). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings National Academy Sciences USA, 36, 48–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nash, J. F. (1951). Noncooperative games. Math, 54, 289–295.Google Scholar
  35. Nash, J. F. (1996). Essays on game theory. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  36. Neumann, J. F., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.Google Scholar
  37. Osborne M. J. & A. Rubinstein. (1994a). Bargaining and markets, Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California 92101 United Kingdom Edition published by Academic Press Limited 24–28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX.Google Scholar
  38. Osborne, M. J., & Rubinstein, A. (1994b). A course in game theory. Cambridge: MIT Press ISBN-13: 978-0262650403.Google Scholar
  39. Parthasarathy, T., Dutta, B., Potters, J. A. M., Raghavan, T. E. S., Ray, D., & Sen, A. (1997). Game Theoretical Applications to Economics and Operations Research. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rubinstein, A. (1990). Game Theory in Economics. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  41. Tisdell, C. (1996). Bounded rationality and economic evalution. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  42. Üşür, İ. (1996). Toplumsal Bilim Olarak İktisat, İktisadın İlkeleri içinde, Ed. Ö. Faruk Çolak: 1–26, Alkım Yayınevi, Ankara.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Güner Koç Aytekin
    • 1
  1. 1.Ufuk UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations