全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2012 

The Hard Problem of Cooperation

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040325

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Based on individual variation in cooperative inclinations, we define the “hard problem of cooperation” as that of achieving high levels of cooperation in a group of non-cooperative types. Can the hard problem be solved by institutions with monitoring and sanctions? In a laboratory experiment we find that the answer is affirmative if the institution is imposed on the group but negative if development of the institution is left to the group to vote on. In the experiment, participants were divided into groups of either cooperative types or non-cooperative types depending on their behavior in a public goods game. In these homogeneous groups they repeatedly played a public goods game regulated by an institution that incorporated several of the key properties identified by Ostrom: operational rules, monitoring, rewards, punishments, and (in one condition) change of rules. When change of rules was not possible and punishments were set to be high, groups of both types generally abided by operational rules demanding high contributions to the common good, and thereby achieved high levels of payoffs. Under less severe rules, both types of groups did worse but non-cooperative types did worst. Thus, non-cooperative groups profited the most from being governed by an institution demanding high contributions and employing high punishments. Nevertheless, in a condition where change of rules through voting was made possible, development of the institution in this direction was more often voted down in groups of non-cooperative types. We discuss the relevance of the hard problem and fit our results into a bigger picture of institutional and individual determinants of cooperative behavior.

References

[1]  Dawes RM (1980) Social dilemmas. Annu Rev Psychol 31: 169–193.
[2]  Croson R, Fatas E, Neugebauer T (2005) Reciprocity, matching and conditional cooperation in two public goods games. Econ Lett 87: 95–101.
[3]  Croson RTA (2007) Theories of commitment, altruism and reciprocity: Evidence from linear public goods games. Econ Inq 45: 199–216.
[4]  Ostrom E (1998) A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. Am Polit Sci Rev 92: 1–22.
[5]  Bogaert S, Boone C, Declerck C (2008) Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. Br J Soc Psychol 47: 453–480.
[6]  Messick DM, McClintock CG (1968) Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. J Exp Soc Psychol 4: 1–25.
[7]  Camerer CF, Fehr E (2006) When does “economic man” dominate social behavior? Science 311: 47–52.
[8]  Brekke KA, Hauge KE, Lind JT, Nyborg K (2011) Playing with the good guys: A public good game with endogenous group formation. J Publ Econ 95: 1111–1118.
[9]  Gunnthorsdottir A, Houser D, McCabe K (2007) Disposition, history and contributions in public goods experiments. J Econ Behav Organ 62: 304–315.
[10]  G?chter S, Th?ni C (2005) Social learning and voluntary learning and voluntary cooperation among like-minded people. J Eur Econ Assoc 3: 303–314.
[11]  Ledyard JO (1995) Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE, editors, The handbook of experimental economics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. 111–194.
[12]  North DC (1998) Where have we been and where are we going? In: Ben-Ner A, Putterman L, editors, Economics, Values and Organization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13]  Lichbach MI (1997) The cooperator’s dilemma. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
[14]  Miller G (2000) Rational choice and dysfunctional institutions. Governance 13: 535–547.
[15]  Rothstein B (2000) Trust, social dilemmas and collective memories. J Theor Polit 12: 477–501.
[16]  Funder D (2006) Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations, and behaviors. J Res Pers 40: 21–34.
[17]  Young HP (2001) Individual strategy and social structure: An evolutionary theory of institutions. Princeton University Press.
[18]  Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
[19]  North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
[20]  Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press.
[21]  Herrmann B, Th?ni C, G?chter S (2008) Antisocial punishment across societies. Science 319: 1362–1367.
[22]  Hoff K, Stiglitz JE (2004) After the big bang? Obstacles to the emergence of the rule of law in post-communist societies. Am Econ Rev 94: 753–763.
[23]  Burns TR, Dietz T (1992) Cultural evolution: Social rule systems, selection and human agency. Int Sociol 7: 259–283.
[24]  Carneiro RL, Carneiro R (2003) Evolutionism in cultural anthropology: A critical history. Westview Press.
[25]  Binmore K (2005) Natural justice. Oxford University Press, USA.
[26]  Casari M, Plott CR (2003) Decentralized management of common property resources: Experiments with a centuries-old institution. J Econ Behav Organ 51: 217–247.
[27]  Cinyabuguma M, Page T, Putterman L (2005) Cooperation under the threat of expulsion in a public goods experiment. J Publ Econ 89: 1421–1435.
[28]  Kosfeld M, Okada A, Riedl A (2009) Institution formation in public goods games. Am Econ Rev 99: 1335–1355.
[29]  Kroll S, Cherry TL, Shogren JF (2007) Voting, punishment, and public goods. Econ Inq 45: 557–570.
[30]  Walker JM, Gardner R, Herr A, Ostrom E (2000) Collective choice in the commons: Experimental results on proposed allocation rules and votes. Econ J 110: 212–234.
[31]  Yamagishi T (1986) The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. J Pers Soc Psychol 51: 110–116.
[32]  Wenzel M (2002) The impact of outcome orientation and justice concerns on tax compliance: The role of taxpayers’ identity. J Appl Psychol 87: 629–645.
[33]  Price ME, Cosmides L, Tooby J (2002) Punitive sentiment as an anti-free rider psychological device. Evol Hum Behav 23: 203–231.
[34]  Ertan A, Page T, Putterman L (2009) Who to punish? Individual decisions and majority rule in mitigating the free rider problem. Eur Econ Rev 53: 495–511.
[35]  Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press.
[36]  Dreber A, Rand DG, Fudenberg D, Nowak MA (2008) Winners don’t punish. Nature 452: 348–351.
[37]  Fehr E, G?chter S (2000) Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Am Econ Rev 90: 980–994.
[38]  Nikiforakis N (2008) Punishment and counter-punishment in public good games: Can we really govern ourselves? J Publ Econ 92: 91–112.
[39]  Ostrom E, Walker J, Gardner R (1992) Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. Am Polit Sci Rev 86: 404–417.
[40]  Rand DG, Dreber A, Ellingsen T, Fudenberg D, Nowak MA (2009) Positive interactions promote public cooperation. Science 325: 1272–1275.
[41]  Gürerk O, Irlenbusch B, Rockenbach B (2006) The competitive advantage of sanctioning institutions. Science 312: 108–111.
[42]  Janssen MA, Holahan R, Lee A, Ostrom E (2010) Lab experiments for the study of social-ecological systems. Science 328: 613–617.
[43]  Chekroun P, Brauer M (2002) The bystander effect and social control behavior: The effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. Eur J Soc Psychol 32: 853–867.
[44]  Chaurand N, Brauer M (2008) What determines social control? People’s reactions to counternormative behaviors in urban environments. J Appl Soc Psychol 38: 1689–1715.
[45]  Brauer M, Chaurand N (2010) Descriptive norms, prescriptive norms, and social control: An intercultural comparison of people’s reactions to uncivil behaviors. Eur J Soc Psychol 40: 490–499.
[46]  Palfrey TR (2009) Laboratory Experiments in Political Economy. Annu Rev Polit Sci 12: 379–388.
[47]  Fehr E, Gachter S (2002) Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415: 137–140.
[48]  Fowler JH (2005) Altruistic punishment and the origin of cooperation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 7047–7049.
[49]  Frank RH (1987) If homo economicus could choose his own utility function, would he want one with a conscience? Am Econ Rev 77: 593–604.
[50]  Frank R (1988) Passions within reason. New York: WW Norton & Co.
[51]  Gintis H (2003) Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evol Hum Behav 24: 153–172.
[52]  Cesarini D, Dawes CT, Fowler JH, Johannesson M, Lichtenstein P, et al. (2008) Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 3721–3726.
[53]  Cesarini D, Dawes CT, Johannesson M, Lichtenstein P, Wallace B (2009) Genetic variation in preferences for giving and risk taking. Q J Econ 124: 809–842.
[54]  Kollock P (1998) Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annu Rev Sociol 24: 183–214.
[55]  Berggren N, Jordahl H (2006) Free to trust: Economic freedom and social capital. Kyklos 59: 141–169.
[56]  Henrich J, McElreath R, Barr A, Ensminger J, Barrett C, et al. (2006) Costly punishment across human societies. Science 312: 1767–1770.
[57]  Henrich J, Ensminger J, McElreath R, Barr A, Barrett C, et al. (2010) Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science 327: 1480–1484.
[58]  Ostrom E (2008) Developing a method for analyzing institutional change. In: Batie S, Mercuro N, editors, Alternative institutional structures evolution and impact, London: Routledge.
[59]  Lambsdorff JG (2008) Corruption perceptions index 2007. In: Transparency International, Global Corruption Report 2008, Berlin: Cambridge University Press.
[60]  Rothstein B (2005) Social traps and the problem of trust. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133