This paper introduces game theory as a mathematical framework for analyzing strategic decision-making among competing firms, with a focus on oligopoly markets. Using a two-airline scenario, it explains core concepts such as players, payoffs, and the payoff matrix. The paper illustrates how firms must account not only for their own strategies but also for anticipated competitor responses. Through a worked numerical example involving loyalty scheme investment, it demonstrates how mutual cooperation yields better long-term outcomes than mutual defection, while also exploring the temptation to cheat on agreements and the cascading consequences that follow.
The paper demonstrates applied economic modeling — taking a formal theoretical framework (game theory) and operationalizing it through a step-by-step scenario. By assigning specific dollar values to each outcome in the matrix, the author shows how abstract strategic reasoning can be tested and visualized quantitatively, a technique central to managerial economics and industrial organization.
The paper opens with a definition of game theory and its applicability to oligopoly markets, then introduces the components of a game (players, decisions, payoffs). It constructs a two-firm airline scenario, walks through the logic of cooperation versus defection across multiple rounds, and presents a 2×2 payoff matrix. The conclusion generalizes the model's relevance to real-world multi-player competitive environments.
Game theory is a model used to examine and explain the way different actors in a given situation may choose to act and develop strategy, using a mathematical approach. The model looks at how players will make decisions based on both their own position and resources as well as the way their competitors are acting or are expected to act. Game theory can therefore be used to help identify the optimal course of action (McEachern, 2009).
There are many scenarios where game theory is useful. In the commercial environment, game theory is most applicable in oligopoly situations — though its use is not limited to these contexts.
To consider the application of the theory, the core concept must first be described. The situation being examined is called a game. For there to be a game, players are required; in a business context, these players are firms (Nellis and Parker, 2006). For a game to commence, there must be at least two players making decisions that will impact on each other. Each set of decisions made by the players produces an outcome referred to as the payoff (McEachern, 2009). An effective way of examining game theory is to work through an example and observe how decisions affect the different players. A useful example is the airline industry, where only a limited number of carriers travel each route.
In this example there are two airlines — Airline A and Airline B — travelling the same route. Airline A wants to increase its profit. Knowing that passengers value its loyalty program, the airline is considering increasing its investment in that program. Enhancing the loyalty scheme will raise costs, but the firm also believes it will attract more customers, thereby generating more profit. The decision to be made is therefore whether or not to invest in the loyalty scheme.
If Airline A invests in its loyalty scheme, it is likely to gain more business, which will result in Airline B losing passengers. If this occurs, Airline B is then likely to invest in its own loyalty program to try to win back the customers lost to Airline A. The net result may be that both airlines have increased their costs by investing in loyalty schemes without achieving a net gain, because both have followed the same strategy.
In game theory, it is possible to look forward at the way a game will play out in stages and determine the potential net result (Nellis and Parker, 2006). In this scenario, it may be argued that the best course of action would be for the two airlines to reach an agreement that protects their profits and avoids wasteful spending.
This approach is simple and has been applied in a two-player scenario, while the real world is not this simple and is likely to involve more players. Nevertheless, the concept of the model holds true and may be used to explain why firms may choose to work together. It also demonstrates the way firms will look ahead — not only at the results their own strategies will produce, but also at the reactions and long-term impact that their strategies may have on competitors, and subsequently on themselves (McEachern, 2009). This is a very useful strategic framework for examining and evaluating how strategy is formulated, as it accounts for both initial strategies and the impact of responding strategies.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.