This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Collective Action, Free Riding And Evolution

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Juan D. Montoro-Pons (Universidad de Valencia)
Abstract

Nash equilibrium is the point of departure of most of the standard literature on public goods. This stresses the sub-optimality of voluntary contributions towards the provision of a public good: in game theoretic terms, with unboundedly rational agents, individual best response is no cooperation in the provision of public goods. However, this is not a satisfactory conclusion, as empirical facts show that, to a certain degree, cooperative behavior as well as free riding emerge in collective action: privately provided public goods do in fact exist. This suggests rethinking the behavioral assumptions that support the conclusions of the conventional model and the extreme abilities and requirements that it imposes on economic agents. This is especially true in complex exchange situations such as the voluntary provision of a public good. Within this context, the aim of this paper is to sketch a behavior theory of non-market decision making in which agents choose a level of individual contribution for a public good. To this end, it departs from the concepts of bounded rationality and evolution, which help in explaining the outcomes of social interaction.The modelThe model may be considered as a simultaneous N player's game; its basic features can be briefly sketched as follows:1. Homogeneous agents interact during a finite time horizon. 2. At the beginning of each stage, agents are endowed with an identical income I, that can be expended in a private good or in the provision of a public good. The basic decision an agent takes is the proportion of income that will be devoted to financing the public good. There is a 1:1 technical transformation relation between the public and private good. 3. Agents take their decisions guided by the payoffs they obtain from each stage. In order to do so they follow a behavioral rule F that maps states into actions: F:S->A.Agents are modeled as classifier systems. A classifier system may be understood as a set of rules with an associated fitness. Rules guide the behavior of agents in that each one is related to a level of contribution. The process by which agents take their actions may be briefly described as (...): identification of the environment, selecting the action and updating the classifier. (...)ExperimentsGiven the previous setup, the paper presents the outcomes of different experiments. The experiments were run with the aim of identifying the effect of different variables on the outcomes of the model: Time, Population Size, Discount rate and Imitation rate. (...)ResultsExperiments suggest some conclusions that are worth mention:First, the system dynamic behavior differs significantly for discount rates above a threshold value. Below this value, the system (asymptotically) converges towards an attractor, in a process that shows a decreasing aggregate level of private contributions. The convergence was not to free riding but for extremely small populations (i.e. comprised of 10 individuals), so some (sub-optimal) level of private provision is guaranteed. However for high enough discount values, contributions behaved as a random walk. In fact, testing the series against the unit root hypothesis (augmented Dickey-Fuller and Phillips-Perron) did not rejected the null, which suggests that possibility. In this case the overall level of public good would wander with an unbounded variance and permanently affected by shocks. As the discount rate affects the dynamic behavior of the model, the rest of the results consider discount values below the threshold.Second, the population size definitely affects the provision. But not increasing voluntary contributions for smaller samples as it has been suggested in the standard literature. In fact the lower levels of contributions were achieved for small samples. And conversely, the larger the population the higher levels of contributions. This may sound striking at first, but in a large population free riding may be less detectable than in small communities, which would allow to conclude (or at least conjecture) that some level of cooperation may be easier to hold in the former case.Third, imitation affects the outcomes. For low imitation rates (only the 10 per cent of the population engaged in imitation at each stage) and using the "imitate the best" strategy, agents did tend to free riding. In general it was found that the aggregate level of cooperation tended to decay when imitation was introduced. However increasing the imitation rate produced unexpected results, which included cycling and increase the global contributions.To conclude, modeling agents engaged in non-market decision making by means of ACE techniques may help to get new insights to the problems of collective action, and give more accurate predictions of what happens in real world than the standard economic approach does.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/cef00/papers/paper279.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Society for Computational Economics in its series Computing in Economics and Finance 2000 with number 279.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 05 Jul 2000
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf0:279

Contact details of provider:
Postal: CEF 2000, Departament d'Economia i Empresa, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Ramon Trias Fargas, 25,27, 08005, Barcelona, Spain
Fax: +34 93 542 17 46
Email:
Web page: http://enginy.upf.es/SCE/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

  1. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin A & Smith, Vernon L, 1998. "Behavioral Foundations of Reciprocity: Experimental Economics and Evolutionary Psychology," Economic Inquiry, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 335-52, July.
  2. Elliott, Catherine S. & Hayward, Donald M. & Canon, Sebastian, 1998. "Institutional framing: Some experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 455-464, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. John Conlisk, 1996. "Why Bounded Rationality?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 669-700, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Miller, John H. & Andreoni, James, 1991. "Can evolutionary dynamics explain free riding in experiments?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 9-15, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Cornes, Richard & Sandler, Todd, 1984. "The theory of public goods: non-nash behaviour," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 367-379, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Cornes, Richard & Sandler, Todd, 1985. "The Simple Analytics of Pure Public Good Provision," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 52(205), pages 103-16, February.
  7. James Andreoni, 1994. "Warm-Glow versus Cold-Prickle: The Effects of Positive and Negative Framing on Cooperation in Experiments," Experimental 9410002, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  8. Sefton, Martin & Steinberg, Richard, 1996. "Reward structures in public good experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 263-287, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Ellison, Glenn & Fudenberg, Drew, 1993. "Rules of Thumb for Social Learning," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(4), pages 612-43, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  10. Kirchkamp, Oliver, 1999. "Simultaneous evolution of learning rules and strategies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 295-312, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  11. Marc WILLINGER & Anthony ZIEGELMEYER, 1999. "Framing and cooperation in public good games: an experiment with an interior solution," Working Papers of BETA 9901, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, ULP, Strasbourg. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  12. Herbert Dawid, . "Genetic Learning in Double Auctions," Computing in Economics and Finance 1997 147, Society for Computational Economics. [Downloadable!]
  13. Palfrey, Thomas R & Prisbrey, Jeffrey E, 1997. "Anomalous Behavior in Public Goods Experiments: How Much and Why?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(5), pages 829-46, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. John Van Huyck & Frederick Rankin & Raymond Battalio, 1999. "What Does it Take to Eliminate the use of a Strategy Strictly Dominated by a Mixture?," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 129-150, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Keser, Claudia, 1996. "Voluntary contributions to a public good when partial contribution is a dominant strategy," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 359-366, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Cornes, Richard & Sandler, Todd, 1985. "On the consistency of conjectures with public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 125-129, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  17. Martin Lettau & Harald Uhlig, 1999. "Rules of Thumb versus Dynamic Programming," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 148-174, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. van der Heijden, E. C. M. & Nelissen, J. H. M. & Potters, J. J. M. & Verbon, H. A. A., 1998. "Transfers and the effect of monitoring in an overlapping-generations experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(7), pages 1363-1391, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. W. Güth & S. Nitzan, 1997. "The Evolutionary Stability of Moral Objections to Free Riding," Economics and Politics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 9(2), pages 133-149, 07. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  20. Fernando Vega-Redondo, 1999. "Markets under bounded rationality: from theory to facts," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 23(1), pages 3-26, January. [Downloadable!]
  21. Thomas Riechmann, 1999. "Learning and behavioral stability An economic interpretation of genetic algorithms," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 225-242. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  22. Sonnemans, Joep & Schram, Arthur & Offerman, Theo, 1999. "Strategic behavior in public good games: when partners drift apart," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 35-41, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  23. Basci, Erdem, 1999. "Learning by imitation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 1569-1585, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  24. Cason, Timothy N. & Khan, Feisal U., 1999. "A laboratory study of voluntary public goods provision with imperfect monitoring and communication," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 533-552, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  25. Dawes, Robyn M & Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "Anomalies: Cooperation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 187-97, Summer. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  26. George J. Mailath, 1998. "Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1347-1374, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? There is a FAQ (frequently asked questions).

This page was last updated on 2009-11-13.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.