IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v88y2021i5p2179-2209..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Record-Keeping and Cooperation in Large Societies
[Has Punishment Played a Role in the Evolution of Cooperation? A Critical Review]

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Clark
  • Drew Fudenberg
  • Alexander Wolitzky

Abstract

We introduce a new model of repeated games in large populations with random matching, overlapping generations, and limited records of past play. We prove that steady-state equilibria exist under general conditions on records. When the updating of a player’s record can depend on the actions of both players in a match, any strictly individually rational action can be supported in a steady-state equilibrium. When record updates can depend only on a player’s own actions, fewer actions can be supported. Here, we focus on the prisoner’s dilemma and restrict attention to strict equilibria that are coordination-proof, meaning that matched partners never play a Pareto-dominated Nash equilibrium in the one-shot game induced by their records and expected continuation payoffs. Such equilibria can support full cooperation if the stage game is either “strictly supermodular and mild” or “strongly supermodular,” and otherwise permit no cooperation at all. The presence of “supercooperator” records, where a player cooperates against any opponent, is crucial for supporting any cooperation when the stage game is “severe.”

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Clark & Drew Fudenberg & Alexander Wolitzky, 2021. "Record-Keeping and Cooperation in Large Societies [Has Punishment Played a Role in the Evolution of Cooperation? A Critical Review]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(5), pages 2179-2209.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:88:y:2021:i:5:p:2179-2209.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/restud/rdab016
    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.

    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:88:y:2021:i:5:p:2179-2209.. 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.