Incorporating monitoring technology and on-site inspections into an n-person inspection game

Abstract A two-stage game between an inspector and multiple inspectees is modeled in which the inspector may choose to invest in a monitoring technology in the first stage to supplement the inspector’s subsequent inspection strategy in the second-stage simultaneous game. The game is motivated by an environmental regulator that has a limited budget for monitoring and inspecting several industrial enterprises, each with an incentive to pollute. A monitoring technology may alter the payoffs of the second-stage game, by making inspection more efficient and by altering the inspectees’ payoffs so as to increase the effect of deterrence. Computation of Nash equilibria is challenging for nonzero sum games in general and also challenging in our case as the utility function of the inspector is nonconcave in its actions. Using the special structure of our game we develop an algorithm to efficiently determine Nash equilibria. We then derive some managerial insights by applying the algorithm to several examples and examining the Nash equilibria, including a counterintuitive outcome that the addition of monitoring technology may cause more inspectees to pollute than would otherwise.

[1]  Rudolf Avenhaus,et al.  Decision theoretic analysis of pollutant emission monitoring procedures , 1994, Ann. Oper. Res..

[2]  Ryusuke Hohzaki,et al.  An inspection game with multiple inspectees , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  S. Akbar,et al.  Solid‐State Gas Sensors: A Review , 1992 .

[4]  Michael Maschler,et al.  A price leadership method for solving the inspector's non-constant-sum game , 1966 .

[5]  George Tsebelis,et al.  The Abuse of Probability in Political Analysis: The Robinson Crusoe Fallacy , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[6]  Gregory Mone,et al.  The new smart cities , 2015, Commun. ACM.

[7]  C. Tapiero Environmental quality and satisficing games , 2005 .

[8]  Uriel G. Rothblum,et al.  Inspection games with local and global allocation bounds , 2013 .

[9]  George Tsebelis,et al.  Are Sanctions Effective? , 1990 .

[10]  D. Marc Kilgour,et al.  Efficient distributions of arms‐control inspection effort , 2004 .

[11]  Gene E. Likens,et al.  Who needs environmental monitoring , 2007 .

[12]  Uriel G. Rothblum,et al.  Determining all Nash equilibria in a (bi-linear) inspection game , 2011, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[13]  Tomomi Matsui,et al.  NP-hardness of linear multiplicative programming and related problems , 1996, J. Glob. Optim..

[14]  Luciano Andreozzi Rewarding Policemen Increases Crime. Another Surprising Result from the Inspection Game , 2004 .

[15]  Laurent Franckx,et al.  Environmental Enforcement with Endogenous Ambient Monitoring , 2002 .

[16]  Melvin Dresher,et al.  A Sampling Inspection Problem in Arms Control Agreements: A Game-Theoretic Analysis , 1962 .

[17]  C. Tapiero Environmental quality control and environmental games , 2005 .

[18]  Boaz Golany,et al.  The effect of risk aversion on the outcomes of inspection games , 2018, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[19]  Chaolin Li,et al.  A game-theoretic analysis of implementation of cleaner production policies in the Chinese electroplating industry , 2010 .

[20]  Clifford K. Ho,et al.  Overview of Sensors and Needs for Environmental Monitoring , 2005, Sensors (Basel, Switzerland).

[21]  Boaz Golany,et al.  Multiple agents finitely repeated inspection game with dismissals , 2016, Ann. Oper. Res..

[22]  Richard Zeckhauser,et al.  Attacking the unknown weapons of a potential bomb builder: The impact of intelligence on the strategic interaction , 2017, Games Econ. Behav..

[23]  Noam Goldberg Non‐zero‐sum nonlinear network path interdiction with an application to inspection in terror networks , 2017 .

[24]  Rudolf Avenhaus,et al.  Deterrence, technology, and the sensible distribution of arms control verification resources , 2011 .

[25]  Bernhard von Stengel,et al.  Recursive Inspection Games , 2014, Math. Oper. Res..