IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v80y2013i1p395-427.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cooperation with Network Monitoring

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Wolitzky

Abstract

This paper studies the maximum level of cooperation that can be sustained in perfect Bayesian equilibrium in repeated games with network monitoring, where players observe each other's actions either perfectly or not at all. The foundational result is that the maximum level of cooperation can be robustly sustained in grim trigger strategies. If players are equally well monitored, comparative statics on the maximum level of cooperation are highly tractable and depend on the monitoring technology only through a simple statistic, its effective contagiousness. Typically, cooperation in the provision of pure public goods is greater in larger groups, while cooperation in the provision of divisible public goods is greater in smaller groups, and making monitoring less uncertain in the second-order stochastic dominance sense increases cooperation. For fixed monitoring networks, a new notion of network centrality is developed, which determines which players cooperate more in a given network, as well as which networks support greater cooperation. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Wolitzky, 2013. "Cooperation with Network Monitoring," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(1), pages 395-427.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:80:y:2013:i:1:p:395-427
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/restud/rds016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Feinberg, Yossi & Kets, Willemien, 2014. "Ranking friends," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 1-9.
    2. Laclau, M., 2014. "Communication in repeated network games with imperfect monitoring," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 136-160.
    3. Laclau, Marie, 2012. "A folk theorem for repeated games played on a network," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 711-737.
    4. Daron Acemoglu & Alexander Wolitzky, 2015. "Sustaining Cooperation: Community Enforcement vs. Specialized Enforcement," NBER Working Papers 21457, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Ce Liu, 2020. "Stability in Repeated Matching Markets," Papers 2007.03794, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2021.
    6. Alexander E. Saak, 2012. "Collective Reputation, Social Norms, and Participation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(3), pages 763-785.
    7. Guéron, Yves, 2015. "Failure of gradualism under imperfect monitoring," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 128-145.
    8. Joshi, Sumit & Mahmud, Ahmed Saber, 2016. "Sanctions in networks: “The Most Unkindest Cut of All”," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 44-53.
    9. Liu, Ce, 2023. "Stability in repeated matching markets," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(4), November.
    10. Edoardo Gallo & Joseph Lee & Yohanes Eko Riyanto & Erwin Wong, 2023. "Cooperation and Cognition in Social Networks," Papers 2305.01209, arXiv.org.
    11. Balmaceda, Felipe & Escobar, Juan F., 2017. "Trust in cohesive communities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 289-318.
    12. Yangbo Song & Mihaela Schaar, 2020. "Dynamic network formation with foresighted agents," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(2), pages 345-384, June.
    13. Michalis Drouvelis & Johannes Jarke-Neuert & Johannes Lohse, 2021. "Should transparency be (in-)transparent? On monitoring aversion and cooperation in teams," Papers 2112.12621, arXiv.org.
    14. Mihm, Maximilian & Toth, Russell, 2020. "Cooperative networks with robust private monitoring," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    15. Levine, David K. & Modica, Salvatore, 2016. "Peer discipline and incentives within groups," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 19-30.
    16. Nava, Francesco & Piccione, Michele, 2012. "Efficiency in repeated games with local interaction and uncertain local monitoring," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 54250, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. , & ,, 2014. "Efficiency in repeated games with local interaction and uncertain local monitoring," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(1), January.
    18. Oguzhan Celebi, 2023. "Substitutability in Favor Exchange," Papers 2309.10749, arXiv.org.
    19. Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Jonathan, Yeo X.W., 2018. "Directed trust and trustworthiness in a social network: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 234-253.
    20. Fainmesser, Itay P., 2019. "Exclusive intermediation in unobservable networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 533-548.
    21. Joshi, Sumit & Mahmud, Ahmed Saber, 2020. "Sanctions in networks," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    22. Oyama, Daisuke & Takahashi, Satoru, 2015. "Contagion and uninvadability in local interaction games: The bilingual game and general supermodular games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 100-127.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:80:y:2013:i:1:p:395-427. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.