Competition: Difference between revisions

{{Short description|Rivalry where multiple parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared}}

{{Other uses|Competition (disambiguation)|Compete (disambiguation)}}

[[File:Athletics competitions.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Competition in sports. One selection of images showing some of the sporting events that are classed as [[sport of athletics|athletics]] competitions.]]

'''Competition''' is a [[rivalry]] where two or more parties strive for a common [[goal]] which cannot be shared: where one's gain is the other's loss (an example of which is a [[zero-sum game]]).<ref>Smith, K.G., Ferrier, W.J. and Ndofor, H., 2001. Competitive dynamics research: Critique and future directions. Handbook of strategic management, pp.315-361.</ref> Competition can arise between entities such as organisms, individuals, economic and social groups, etc. The rivalry can be over attainment of any exclusive goal, including [[Recognition (sociology)|recognition]]: (e.g. [[award]]s, goods, mates, status, prestige), [[leadership]], [[market share]], niches and scarce [[resource]]s, or a [[territory (animal)|territory]].

 

Competition occurs in nature, between living organisms which co-exist in the same [[natural environment|environment]]. Animals compete over water supplies, food, mates, and other [[resource (biology)|biological resources]]. [[Human]]s usually [[Survival of the fittest|compete for food and mates]], though when these needs are met deep rivalries often arise over the pursuit of [[wealth]], power, prestige, and [[celebrity|fame]] when in a static, repetitive, or unchanging environment. Competition is a major tenet of [[market economy|market economies]] and business, often associated with business competition as companies are in competition with at least one other firm over the same group of customers. Competition inside a company is usually stimulated with the larger purpose of meeting and reaching higher quality of services or improved products that the company may produce or develop.

 

Competition is often considered to be the opposite of [[cooperation]], however in the real world, mixtures of cooperation and competition are the norm.<ref>[http://www.sociologyguide.com/basic-concepts/Competition.php Competition], Sociology guide</ref> In economies, as the philosopher R. G. Collingwood argued "the presence of these two opposites together is essential to an economic system. The parties to an economic action co-operate in competing, like two chess players".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Collingwood|first=Robin, George|date=1926|title=Economics as a Philosophical Science|url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/intejethi.36.2.2377247?journalCode=intejethi|journal=The International Journal of Ethics|volume=36|issue=2|pages=162–185 at. p. 177|doi=10.1086/intejethi.36.2.2377247|s2cid=143530850}}</ref> Optimal strategies to achieve goals are studied in the branch of mathematics known as [[game theory]].

 

Competition has been studied in several fields, including [[psychology]], [[sociology]] and [[anthropology]]. Social [[psychologist]]s, for instance, study the nature of competition. They investigate the natural urge of competition and its circumstances. They also study [[group dynamics]], to detect how competition emerges and what its effects are. [[Sociologist]]s, meanwhile, study the effects of competition on society as a whole. Additionally, [[anthropologist]]s study the [[history]] and prehistory of competition in various cultures. They also investigate how competition manifested itself in various [[culture|cultural]] settings in the past, and how competition has developed over time.

Competition between members of a species ("intraspecific") for resources such as [[food]], [[water]], [[Territory (animal)|territory]], and [[sunlight]] may result in an increase in the frequency of a variant of the species best suited for survival and reproduction until its fixation within a population. However, competition among resources also has a strong tendency for diversification between members of the same species, resulting in coexistence of competitive and non-competitive strategies or cycles between low and high competitiveness. Third parties within a species often favour highly competitive strategies leading to species extinction when environmental conditions are harsh ([[evolutionary suicide]]).<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Baldauf|first1=Sebastian A.|last2=Engqvist|first2=Leif|last3=Weissing|first3=Franz J.|title=Diversifying evolution of competitiveness|journal=Nature Communications|date=29 October 2014|volume=5|pages=5233|doi=10.1038/ncomms6233|pmid=25351604|bibcode=2014NatCo...5.5233B|doi-access=free}}</ref>

People that enjoy entering competitions are known as compers. Many compers attend annual national conventions. In 2012 over 100 members of the online competitions community of lottos.com.au from around Australia met on the Gold Coast, Queensland to discuss competitions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lottos.com.au/competitions/viewthreadlite.php?tid=275933|title=NATIONAL LOTTOS MEET GOLD COAST 16TH SEPTEMBER 2012 :)|publisher=Lottos.com.au|access-date=2013-08-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130724001800/http://www.lottos.com.au/competitions/viewthreadlite.php?tid=275933|archive-date=2013-07-24|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/amv7jMwbHIw Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20191003092409/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amv7jMwbHIw&gl=US&hl=en Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amv7jMwbHIw&t=6s|title=Comp Queens|date=2012-09-21|publisher=Aca.ninemsn.com.au|access-date=2013-08-02}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

Competition is a major factor in education. On a global scale, national education systems, intending to bring out the best in the next generation, encourage competitiveness among students through [[scholarships]]. Countries such as England and Singapore have [[special education]] programmes which cater for specialist students, prompting charges of [[academic elitism]]. Upon receipt of their academic results, students tend to compare their grades to see who is better. In severe cases, the pressure to perform in some countries is so high that it can result in stigmatization of intellectually deficient students, or even suicide as a consequence of failing the exams; Japan being a prime example (see [[Education in Japan]]). This has resulted in critical re-evaluation of examinations as a whole by educationalists {{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}. Critics of competition as a motivating factor in education systems, such as [[Alfie Kohn]], assert that competition actually has a net negative influence on the achievement levels of students, and that it "turns all of us into losers" (Kohn 1986). Economist [[Richard Layard]] has commented on the harmful effects, stating "people feel that they are under a great deal of pressure. They feel that their main objective in life is to do better than other people. That is certainly what young people are being taught in school every day. And it's not a good basis for a society."<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13052639 ''Group dedicated to happiness launched in UK'', BBC video, April 12, 2011]</ref>

However, other studies such as the [[Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking]] show that the effect of competition on students depends on each individual's level of [[Agency (philosophy)|agency]]. Students with a high level of agency thrive on competition, are self-motivated, and are willing to risk failure. Compared to their counterparts who are low in agency, these students are more likely to be flexible, adaptable and creative as adults.<ref>{{Citation|last1=Conti|first1=Regina|title=The impact of competition on intrinsic motivation and creativity: Considering gender, gender segregation and gender role orientation|date=December 2001|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223760263|journal=Personality and Individual Differences|volume=31|issue=8|pages=1273–1289|doi=10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00217-8|last2=Picariello|first2=Martha|last3=Collins|first3=Mary}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last1=Eisenberg|first1=Jacob|title=The Effects of Competition on Improvisers' Motivation, Stress, and Creative Performance|date=16 April 2012|journal=Creativity Research Journal|volume=23|issue=2|pages=129–136|doi=10.1080/10400419.2011.571185|issn=1040-0419|last2=Thompson|first2=William Forde|s2cid=144893872}}</ref>

Merriam-Webster gives as one definition of competition (relating to [[business sector|business]]) as "[...] rivalry: such as [...] the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms".<ref>Compare: [http://m-w.com/dictionary/competition Definition of competition] - "competition [...] 1 : the act or process of competing : rivalry: such as [...] a : the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms "</ref>  [[Adam Smith]] in his 1776 book ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'' and later economists described competition in general as allocating productive [[resource]]s to their most highly valued uses and encouraging [[X-inefficiency|efficiency]].<ref>[[George J. Stigler]] ([[The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics|[1987]]] 2008). "competition," ''[[The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics]]''. [http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_C000261&q=competition&topicid=&result_number=6 Abstract.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150215032134/http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_C000261&q=competition&topicid=&result_number=6 |date=2015-02-15 }}</ref>{{qn|date=March 2020}} Later [[microeconomic theory]] distinguished between [[perfect competition]] and [[imperfect competition]], concluding that no system of resource allocation is more efficient than [[perfect competition]].{{citation needed|date=March 2020}} Competition, according to the theory, causes commercial firms to develop new products, services and technologies, which would give consumers greater selection and better products. The greater selection typically causes lower prices for the products, compared to what the price would be if there was no competition ([[monopoly]]) or little competition ([[oligopoly]]).{{citation needed|date=March 2020}}

Experts have also questioned the constructiveness of competition in profitability. It has been argued that competition-oriented objectives are counterproductive to raising revenues and profitability because they limit the options of strategies for firms as well as their ability to offer innovative responses to changes in the market.<ref>{{cite journal |url= http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/CompOrientPDF%2011-27%20%282%29.pdf |title= The Profitability of Winning |author1= J. Scott Armstrong |author2= Fred Collopy |journal= Chief Executive |pages= 61–63 |year= 1994 |access-date= 2011-12-06 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100622023252/http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/CompOrientPDF%2011-27%20(2).pdf |archive-date= 2010-06-22 |url-status= dead | quote = A 1996 review of the evidence, summarized in this paper, found that competitor-oriented objectives reduced profitability. We describe new evidence from 12 studies, one of which is introduced in this paper. The new evidence supports the conclusion that competitor-oriented objectives are harmful, especially when managers receive information about competitors' market shares.}}</ref> In addition, the strong desire to defeat rival firms with competitive prices has the strong possibility of causing [[price war]]s.<ref>{{cite journal | url = http://qbox.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/mktg/research/Profitability%20of%20winning.pdf | title = Competitor-oriented Objectives: The Myth of Market Share | author1 = J. Scott Armstrong | author2 = Kesten C. Greene | journal = International Journal of Business | volume = 12 | issue = 1 | pages = 116–34 | year = 2007 | issn = 1083-4346 }}{{Dead link|date= November 2019 |bot= InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted= yes }}</ref>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<ref name=r5>• [[Vernon L. Smith]], 1992. "Game Theory and Experimental Economics: Beginnings and Early Influences," in E. R. Weintraub, ed., ''Towards a History of Game Theory'', pp. [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9CHY2Gozh1MC&oi=fnd&pg=PA241 241–82].<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; • _____, 2001. "Experimental Economics," ''[[International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences]]'', pp. 5100–08. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767022324 Abstract] per sect. 1.1 & 2.1.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; • [[Charles R. Plott]] and Vernon L. Smith, ed., 2008. ''Handbook of Experimental Economics Results'', v. 1, Elsevier, Part 4, Games, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/handbooks/15740722 ch. 45–66].<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; • Vincent P. Crawford (1997). "Theory and Experiment in the Analysis of Strategic Interaction," in ''Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications'', pp. [http://weber.ucsd.edu/~vcrawfor/CrawfordThExp97.pdf 206–42]. Cambridge. Reprinted in Colin F. Camerer ''et al''., ed. (2003). ''Advances in Behavioral Economics'', Princeton. 1986–2003 papers. [http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8437.html Description], [https://books.google.com/books?id=sA4jJOjwCW4C&printsec=find&pg=PR7 preview], Princeton, ch. 12.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; • Martin Shubik, 2002. "Game Theory and Experimental Gaming," in R. Aumann and S. Hart, ed., ''Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications'', Elsevier, v. 3, pp. 2327–51. {{DOI|10.1016/S1574-0005(02)03025-4}}.</ref>

<ref name=r7>• Eric Rasmusen (2007). ''Games and Information'', 4th ed. [http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP001009.html Description] and [https://books.google.com/books?id=5XEMuJwnBmUC&printsec=fnd&pg=PR5 chapter-preview.]<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; • [[David M. Kreps]] (1990). ''Game Theory and Economic Modelling''. [http://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/oxpobooks/9780198283812.htm Description.]<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; • R. Aumann and S. Hart, ed. (1992, 2002). ''Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications'' v. 1, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/handbooks/15740005/1 ch. 3–6] and v. 3, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574000502030060 ch. 43].</ref>

<ref name=r8>• [[Jean Tirole]] (1988). ''The Theory of Industrial Organization'', MIT Press. [https://books.google.com/books?id=HIjsF0XONF8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s Description] and chapter-preview links, pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=HIjsF0XONF8C&printsec=find&pg=PR7 vii–ix], "General Organization," pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=HIjsF0XONF8C&dq=find&pg=PA5 5–6], and "Non-Cooperative Game Theory: A User's Guide Manual,' " ch. 11, pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=HIjsF0XONF8C&dq=find&pg=PA423 423–59].<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; • Kyle Bagwell and Asher Wolinsky (2002). "Game theory and Industrial Organization," ch. 49, ''Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications'',

v. 3, pp. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574000502030126 1851–1895].<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; • Martin Shubik (1959). ''Strategy and Market Structure: Competition, Oligopoly, and the Theory of Games'', Wiley. [http://devirevues.demo.inist.fr/handle/2042/29380 Description] and review [https://www.jstor.org/pss/40434883 extract].<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; • _____ with Richard Levitan (1980). ''Market Structure and Behavior'', Harvard University Press. Review [https://www.jstor.org/pss/2232276 extract]. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100315131945/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=8224 |date=15 March 2010 }}</ref>

<ref name=r9>• Martin Shubik (1981). "Game Theory Models and Methods in Political Economy," in ''Handbook of Mathematical Economics'', v. 1, pp. 285–330 {{DOI|10.1016/S1573-4382(81)01011-4}}.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; •_____ (1987). ''A Game-Theoretic Approach to Political Economy''. MIT Press. [http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=5086&ttype=2 Description]. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629151809/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=5086&ttype=2 |date=29 June 2011 }}</ref>

<ref name=r10>• Martin Shubik (1978). "Game Theory: Economic Applications," in W. Kruskal and J.M. Tanur, ed., ''International Encyclopedia of Statistics'', v. 2, pp.&nbsp;372–78.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp; • Robert Aumann and [[Sergiu Hart]], ed. ''Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications'' (scrollable to chapter-outline or abstract links):

:1992. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/handbooks/15740005/1 v. 1]; 1994. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/handbooks/15740005/2 v. 2]; 2002. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/handbooks/15740005/3 v. 3.]</ref>

<ref name="GT-A-E-00">N. Agarwal and P. Zeephongsekul. [http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim2011/D6/agarwal.pdf Psychological Pricing in Mergers & Acquisitions using Game Theory], School of Mathematics and Geospatial Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne</ref>

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Competition| ]]

[[Category:Social events]]