Welfare Implications of Leadership in a Resource Market Under Bilateral Monopoly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does a country strictly gain if it acts as a leader in a resource market under bilateral monopoly? Using differential games, we show that the answer is "yes"" when leadership can be exercised globally (global Stackelberg leadership), but possibly ""no"" when it is exercised only at each stage (stagewise Stackelberg leadership). On the other hand, world welfare under Nash equilibrium is strictly higher than under global Stackelberg equilibrium. Regardless of which country is the leader, world welfare under stagewise Stackelberg leadership is higher than under global Stackelberg leadership." Quand un pays est un leader dans un marché d'une ressource non-renouvelable, est-ce que son niveau de bien-être devient plus élevé? On montre que la réponse est affirmative quand il s'agit d'un leadership global, mais elle peut être négative dans le cas d'un leadership par étapes. Par contre, le niveau de bien-être mondial sous l'équilibre de Nash est supérieur à celui qui est le résultat de l'équilibre global de Stackelberg. Du point de vue du bien-être mondial, l'équilibre de Stackelberg par étapes est meilleur que l'équilibre global de Stackelberg.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".