hidden
Image Database Export Citations

Menu:

Non-binding Agreements and Fairness in Commons Dilemma Games

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Ostmann, Axel
dc.contributor.author Meinhardt, Holger
dc.date.accessioned 2010-01-11T20:16:36Z
dc.date.available 2010-01-11T20:16:36Z
dc.date.issued 2007 en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/10535/5375
dc.description.abstract "Usually, common pool games are analyzed without taking into account the cooperative features of the game, even when communication and non-binding agreements are involved. Whereas equilibria are inefficient, negotiations may induce some cooperation and may enhance efficiency. In the paper, we propose to use tools of cooperative game theory to advance the understanding of results in dilemma situations that allow for communication. By doing so, we present a short review of earlier experimental evidence given by Hackett, Schlager, andWalker 1994 (HSW) for the conditional stability of non-binding agreements established in face-to-face multilateral negotiations. For an experimental test, we reanalyze the HSW data set in a game-theoretical analysis of cooperative versions of social dilemma games. The results of cooperative game theory that are most important for the application are explained and interpreted with respect to their meaning for negotiation behavior. Then, theorems are discussed that cooperative social dilemma games are clear (alpha- and beta-values coincide) and that they are convex (it follows that the 'core is large'): The main focus is on how arguments of power and fairness can be based on the structure of the game. A second item is how fairness and stability properties of a negotiated (non-binding) agreement can be judged. The use of cheap talk in evaluating experiments reveals that besides the relation of non-cooperative and cooperative solutions, say of equilibria and core, the relation of alpha-, beta- and gamma-values are of importance for the availability of attractive solutions and the stability of the such agreements. In the special case of the HSW scenario, the game shows properties favorable for stable and efficient solutions. Nevertheless, the realized agreements are less efficient than expected. The realized (and stable) agreements can be located between the equilibrium, the egalitarian solution and some fairness solutions. In order to represent the extent to which the subjects obey efficiency and fairness, we present and discuss patterns of the corresponding excess vectors." en_US
dc.language English en_US
dc.subject fairness en_US
dc.subject commons en_US
dc.subject game theory en_US
dc.title Non-binding Agreements and Fairness in Commons Dilemma Games en_US
dc.type Journal Article en_US
dc.type.published unpublished en_US
dc.type.methodology Case Study en_US
dc.subject.sector Social Organization en_US
dc.subject.sector Theory en_US
dc.identifier.citationjournal Central European Journal of Operation Research en_US
dc.identifier.citationvolume 15 en_US
dc.identifier.citationpages 63-96 en_US
dc.identifier.citationnumber 1 en_US
dc.identifier.citationmonth March en_US


Files in this item

Files Size Format View
Ostmann--Non Binding Agreements.pdf 416.2Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following document type(s)

Show simple item record