The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Cooperation

  • Samuel Bowles
  • Herbert Gintis
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2057

Abstract

We review game-theoretic models of cooperation with self-regarding agents. We then study the folk theorem in large groups of self-regarding individuals with imperfect information. In contrast to the dyadic case with perfect information, the level of cooperation deteriorates with larger group size and higher error rates. Moreover, no plausible account exists of how the dynamic, out-of-equilibrium behaviour of these models would support cooperative outcomes. We then analyse cooperation with other-regarding preferences, finding that a high level of cooperation can be attained in large groups and with modest informational requirements, and that conditions allowing the evolution of such social preferences are plausible.

Keywords

Cooperation Focal rules Folk theorem Game theory General equilibrium Multiple equilibria Prisoner’s Dilemma Private information Public goods game Reciprocity, indirect Reciprocity, strong Repeated games Reputation maintenance Retaliation Social preferences Strategic interaction Subgame perfection Tit for tat 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Bibliography

  1. Arrow, K.J., and G. Debreu. 1954. Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica 22: 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K.J., and F. Hahn. 1971. General competitive analysis. San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
  3. Aumann, R.J., and A. Brandenburger. 1995. Epistemic conditions for Nash equilibrium. Econometrica 65: 1161–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axelrod, R., and W.D. Hamilton. 1981. The evolution of cooperation. Science 211: 1390–1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benedict, R. 1934. Patterns of culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  6. Bergstrom, T.C. 1995. On the evolution of altruistic ethical rules for siblings. American Economic Review 85: 58–81.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, V., and I. Obara. 2002. Belief-based equilibria the repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma with private monitoring. Journal of Economic Theory 102: 40–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binmore, K. 1993. Game theory and the social contract: Playing fair. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Binmore, K. 1998. Game theory and the social contract: Just playing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Binmore, K.G. 2005. Natural justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Bowles, S. 2006. Group competition, reproductive leveling, and the evolution of human altruism. Science 314: 1669–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowles, S., and H. Gintis. 2004. The evolution of strong reciprocity: Cooperation in heterogeneous populations. Theoretical Population Biology 65: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bowles, S., and H. Gintis. 2007. A cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution, in preparation.Google Scholar
  15. Bowles, S., C. Jung-Kyoo, and A. Hopfensitz. 2003. The co-evolution of individual behaviors and social institutions. Journal of Theoretical Biology 223: 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boyd, R., H. Gintis, S. Bowles, and P.J. Richerson. 2003. Evolution of altruistic punishment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 3531–3535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boyd, R., and P.J. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Brandt, H., and K. Sigmund. 2004. The logic of reprobation: Assessment and action rules for indirect reciprocation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 231: 475–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brandt, H., and K. Sigmund. 2005. Indirect reciprocity, image scoring, and moral hazard. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 2666–2670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brown, D.E. 1991. Human Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Debreu, G. 1959. Theory of value. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Durkheim, E. 1902. De La Division du Travail Social, 1967. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  23. Ely, J.C., and J. Välimäki. 2002. A robust folk theorem for the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Journal of Economic Theory 102: 84–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fehr, E., and S. Gächter. 2000. Cooperation and punishment. American Economic Review 90: 980–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fudenberg, D., and E. Maskin. 1986. The Folk Theorem in repeated games with discounting or with incomplete information. Econometrica 54: 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fudenberg, D., D.K. Levine, and E. Maskin. 1994. The Folk Theorem with imperfect public information. Econometrica 62: 997–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gintis, H. 1976. The nature of the labor exchange and the theory of capitalist production. Review of Radical Political Economics 8(2): 36–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gintis, H. 2000. Strong reciprocity and human sociality. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206: 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gintis, H. 2003. The hitchhiker’s guide to altruism: Genes, culture, and the internalization of norms. Journal of Theoretical Biology 220: 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gintis, H. 2007. Modeling cooperation with self-regarding agents. Santa Fe: Santa Fe Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Henrich, J., R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, et al. 2005. Economic man in crosscultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 795–815.Google Scholar
  32. Laffont, J.J. 2000. Incentives and political economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Leimar, O., and P. Hammerstein. 2001. Evolution of cooperation through indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B 268: 745–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mailath, G.J., and S. Morris. 2006. Coordination failure in repeated games with almost-public monitoring. Theoretical Economics 1: 311–340.Google Scholar
  35. Nowak, M.A., and K. Sigmund. 1998. Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 393: 573–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Panchanathan, K., and R. Boyd. 2003. A tale of two defectors: The importance of standing for evolution of indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology 224: 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Panchanathan, K., and R. Boyd. 2004. Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem. Nature 432: 499–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parsons, T., and E. Shils. 1951. Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piccione, M. 2002. The repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma with imperfect private monitoring. Journal of Economic Theory 102: 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salomonsson, M., and J. Weibull. 2006. Natural selection and social preferences. Journal of Theoretical Biology 239: 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sekiguchi, T. 1997. Efficiency in repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma with private monitoring. Journal of Economic Theory 76: 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sethi, R., and E. Somanathan. 2001. Preference evolution and reciprocity. Journal of Economic Theory 97: 273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shubik, M. 1959. Strategy and market structure: Competition, oligopoly, and the theory of games. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Stiglitz, J. 1987. The causes and consequences of the dependence of quality on price. Journal of Economic Literature 25: 1–48.Google Scholar
  45. Sugden, R. 1986. The economics of rights, co-operation and welfare. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, M. 1976. Anarchy and cooperation. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Tirole, J. 1988. The theory of industrial organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel Bowles
    • 1
  • Herbert Gintis
    • 1
  1. 1.