Interconnected Contests

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.11452
• Title: Interconnected Contests
• Authors: Marcin Dziubiński, Sanjeev Goyal, Junjie Zhou
• Classification: econ.TH (Economic Theory)
• Publication Date: October 14, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11452

Abstract

This paper investigates a two-player conflict model with multiple battlefields, with the innovation that each participant possesses their own spillover network, enabling resources allocated to one battlefield to be utilized for winning victories on adjacent battlefields. The paper establishes the existence of a unique equilibrium in which the relative probability of a participant winning a particular battlefield equals the product of the centrality ratio of that battlefield in the two competing networks and the ratio of the two participants' relative effort costs. The paper examines the network design problem and characterizes networks that maximize total effort and total utility. Finally, it analyzes the game equilibrium when participants simultaneously choose networks and battlefield efforts.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core problem addressed in this paper is to introduce the effects of network spillover mechanisms in multi-battlefield conflicts. Traditional multi-battlefield competition theory (originating from Borel 1921) assumes independence across battlefields, while this paper innovatively introduces a network spillover mechanism: resources invested by a participant in one battlefield can be partially utilized for competition on adjacent battlefields.

Research Significance

This problem has broad practical applications:

1. Military Conflicts: Military deployments on one battlefield may influence adjacent battlefields
2. Political Competition: Campaign expenditures in one electoral district may affect neighboring districts
3. Advertising Competition: Investment in one media channel may influence other channels
4. R&D Innovation: Research investments in one field may generate technological spillovers
5. Cybersecurity: Protection of one node may enhance security of adjacent nodes

Limitations of Existing Approaches

Traditional competition theory primarily focuses on independent battlefields, overlooking network effects in resource allocation. While existing network game theory considers network structures, it lacks in-depth analysis of interactions between competing networks.

Research Motivation

The core motivation of this paper is to combine competition theory with network theory, analyzing how network structures influence equilibrium strategies, effort allocation, and final payoffs when two participants each possess different spillover networks.

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Innovation: Establishes a competitive network model combining traditional competition theory with network theory
2. Equilibrium Characterization: Proves the existence of a unique equilibrium and provides closed-form solutions for winning probabilities
3. Network Design: Characterizes optimal network structures that maximize total effort and total utility
4. Endogenous Networks: Analyzes game equilibrium when participants simultaneously choose networks and efforts
5. Practical Insights: Provides theoretical foundations for networks as "handicap mechanisms"

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Consider two participants competing on m battlefields, where each participant i chooses an effort vector $e_i = (e_i^k)_{k∈B} ∈ \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}^B$ and spillover network $\rho_i = (\rho_i^{k,l})_{k,l∈B}$. The effective effort of participant i on battlefield k is:

$y_i^k = e_i^k + \sum_{l∈B\setminus\{k\}} \rho_i^{l,k} e_i^l$

Model Architecture

1. Contest Success Function

Employs the Tullock contest success function, where the probability that participant i wins battlefield k is: $p_i^k = \frac{(y_i^k)^\gamma}{(y_1^k)^\gamma + (y_2^k)^\gamma}$ where $\gamma \in (0,1]$.

2. Payoff Function

The expected payoff of participant i is: $\Pi_i(e_1, e_2) = \sum_{k∈B} v^k p_i^k(e_1, e_2) - c_i \sum_{k∈B} e_i^k$

3. Network Representation

Network spillovers are represented in matrix form: $y_i = (I + \rho_i^T)e_i$, where I is the identity matrix.

Technical Innovations

1. Interaction of Competitive Networks

The key innovation of this paper is analyzing the interaction between two different networks. The marginal payoff of participant i depends not only on their own network structure but is also influenced by the opponent's network.

2. Application of Bonacich Centrality

Introduces the concept of Bonacich centrality from network theory into competition theory, establishing direct connections between winning probabilities and network centrality.

3. Treatment of Corner Equilibria

The model naturally produces corner equilibria (where only one party invests effort on certain battlefields), and the paper provides a complete theoretical framework for handling such complex cases.

Core Theoretical Results

Equilibrium Existence and Uniqueness

Theorem 1: For the Tullock contest success function with $\gamma \in (0,1]$, a pure strategy Nash equilibrium exists. Furthermore, equilibrium payoffs, battlefield winning probabilities, and total effort are unique.

Equilibrium Characterization

Theorem 2 (Interior Equilibrium): Assuming $I + \rho_i$ is nonsingular, in an interior equilibrium: $e_i = \frac{\gamma}{c_i}(I + \rho_i^T)^{-1}(p_1 \odot p_2 \odot v \oslash \mu_i)$

where winning probabilities satisfy: $p_i^k = \frac{(\mu_{-i}^k c_{-i})^\gamma}{(\mu_1^k c_1)^\gamma + (\mu_2^k c_2)^\gamma}$

Key Insight: The ratio of winning probabilities equals the ratio of adjusted marginal costs: $\frac{p_i^k}{p_j^k} = \left(\frac{\mu_j^k c_j}{\mu_i^k c_i}\right)^\gamma$

Network Invariance Result

Proposition 1: If both participants have identical networks, then equilibrium total effort and payoffs are independent of network structure.

This result demonstrates that networks must be asymmetric to have an impact.

Network Design Results

Network Design Maximizing Effort

Proposition 2: Assuming $c_2 \geq c_1 > 0$ and all battlefields have equal value, maximum total effort is achieved through:

• Participant 1: Empty network
• Participant 2: Complete network with spillover intensity $\frac{1}{m-1} \cdot \frac{c_2-c_1}{c_1}$

Intuition: By providing network spillovers as a "handicap" to the cost-disadvantaged party, both parties' winning probabilities on each battlefield approach 1/2, thereby maximizing competitive intensity.

Network Design Maximizing Utility

Proposition 3: By allowing one party to have an empty network and the other to have a complete network with sufficiently large spillovers, equilibrium total effort can be made arbitrarily close to zero, achieving near-first-best social welfare.

Endogenous Network Choice

Proposition 4: When participants can simultaneously choose networks and efforts, equilibrium exhibits "universal access" properties: each participant's effort on any battlefield can be utilized on all battlefields. This results in equilibrium effort depending only on relative costs and total battlefield value.

Numerical Examples and Applications

Two-Node Example

The paper illustrates the model's mechanisms through a detailed two-battlefield example:

• When spillover parameter λ is small, both parties invest effort on both battlefields
• When λ is moderate, one party begins abandoning certain battlefields
• When λ is large, complete battlefield differentiation emerges

Star Network vs. Ring Network

Example 2 demonstrates the power of network topology: star networks can generate unbounded advantages compared to ring networks, even when ring networks have greater total spillovers.

Competing Hub Networks

Example 4 analyzes the complex equilibrium structure when both participants possess hub networks, revealing non-monotonic properties of winning probabilities.

Related Work

Competition Theory

The paper builds on classical multi-battlefield competition theory, with primary references including Borel (1921) and Dixit (1987).

Network Game Theory

Draws on theoretical frameworks of network games, particularly Ballester, Calvó-Armengol, and Zenou (2006).

Competition Design

Aligns with competition design literature including Moldovanu and Sela (2001) and Fu and Wu (2020).

Network Formation

References endogenous network formation theory such as Bala and Goyal (2000).

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Equilibrium Characterization: Network spillovers fundamentally alter the equilibrium structure of multi-battlefield competition
2. Network Effects: Networks influence equilibrium outcomes only when competitive networks are asymmetric
3. Design Insights: Networks can serve as effective handicap mechanisms to regulate competitive intensity
4. Endogenous Choice: When networks are endogenous, participants tend to establish networks with maximum spillovers

Limitations

1. Number of Participants: The model is limited to two participants; extension to multiple participants requires further research
2. Cost Structure: Assumes linear cost structure; more general cost functions warrant exploration
3. Network Costs: The network design section assumes zero network costs, though real-world network construction typically incurs costs
4. Static Analysis: The model is static; dynamic network evolution represents an important extension

Future Directions

1. Multi-Participant Extension: Extend the model to n-participant scenarios
2. Dynamic Analysis: Study dynamic adjustment processes of networks and efforts
3. Complementarities: Consider complementary relationships between efforts rather than substitution
4. Incomplete Information: Incorporate information asymmetry

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Innovation: Successfully combines competition theory with network theory, providing a novel analytical framework
2. Mathematical Rigor: Provides complete proofs of existence, uniqueness, and equilibrium characterization
3. Practical Value: The model applies to multiple real-world domains with broad application prospects
4. Design Insights: Network design results provide valuable guidance for policy-making
5. Technical Handling: Skillfully addresses technical challenges such as corner equilibria

Weaknesses

1. Complexity: The mathematical complexity of the model may limit its practical application
2. Assumption Constraints: Some key assumptions (such as linear costs and specific contest success functions) may be overly restrictive
3. Empirical Validation: Lacks empirical data verification; the real-world applicability of theoretical predictions remains to be tested
4. Computational Complexity: Equilibrium computation may face computational complexity issues for large-scale networks

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Opens new directions for cross-disciplinary research between competition theory and network theory
2. Policy Significance: Provides theoretical foundations for antitrust policy, military strategy, and political competition
3. Methodological Value: Provides a general methodological framework for analyzing competitive networks

Applicable Scenarios

1. Military Applications: Military resource allocation and strategic planning
2. Business Competition: Multi-market competitive strategies for enterprises
3. Political Analysis: Electoral competition and political resource allocation
4. Cybersecurity: Optimization of network defense strategies
5. R&D Management: Portfolio optimization of R&D investments

References

The paper cites extensive relevant literature, primarily including:

• Borel, É. (1921). La Théorie du Jeu et les Équations Intégrales à Noyau Symétrique
• Ballester, C., A. Calvó-Armengol, and Y. Zenou (2006). Who's who in networks
• Moldovanu, B. and A. Sela (2001). The optimal allocation of prizes in contests
• Bala, V. and S. Goyal (2000). A noncooperative model of network formation

This paper makes important contributions to theoretical economics by using mathematical modeling to deeply analyze how network structures influence competitive behavior, providing valuable theoretical foundations and policy guidance for multiple application domains.