The prisoners’ dilemma describes many of life’s situations, and it shows that cooperation can be difficult to maintain, even when cooperation would make both players in the game better off. Clearly, this lack of cooperation is a problem for those involved in these situations. But is lack of cooperation a problem from the standpoint of society as a whole?

The prisoners’ dilemma describes many of life’s situations, and it shows that cooperation can be difficult to maintain, even when cooperation would make both players in the game better off. Clearly, this lack of cooperation is a problem for those involved in these situations. But is lack of cooperation a problem from the standpoint of society as a whole?

Macroeconomics

13th Edition

ISBN:9781337617390

Author:Roger A. Arnold

Publisher:Roger A. Arnold

Chapter1: What Economics Is About

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 19QP

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

How does the concept of the Prisoner's Dilemma illustrate the challenges of cooperation and rational decision-making in economic scenarios?
Two hunters may choose, individually and simultaneously, to go deer hunting, as the deer can provide abundant and appetizing food, or to go hare hunting, also appetizing, but scarce. Deer hunting represents a challenge and requires mutual coordination. Hunting a deer without cooperation means that the deer will be safe; while hunting a deer in groups guarantees it will be caught. Hare hunting is an individual activity that does not require another hunter, and the one who decides to go hare hunting always makes it. The reward for hunting a hare is 1, while the reward for each of the hunters for catching a deer together is 3 for each one. The reward for not hunting a deer is 0. Specify the game in a normal way arising from this situation. Do the players have strictly dominated strategies? Determine the set of rationalizable strategies in this case. Find all Nash equilibriums in this case, if any. Are they efficient in Pareto sense? Justify your answer.
THE PRISONERS' DILEMMA: APPLICATIONS Which of the following phenomena are common mechanisms for sustaining cooperation in prisoners' dilemmas? (Mark all with this property.) Select one or more: ethical codes socialisation of costs delegation of authority underprovision of public goods internalisation of externalities contracts and treaties arms races internalisation of authority overuse of common goods socialisation of public goods
Suppose two players play the prisoners' dilemma game a finite number of times, both players are rational, and the game is played with complete information, is a tit-for-tat strategy optimal in this case? Explain using your own words.
Why might the multiple-play ultimatum game have a different result than the single-play ultimatum game? In the multiple-play ultimatum game, the first player generally offers less money to the second player than in the single-play ultimatum game. The multiple-play ultimatum game leads to a simpler equilibrium: the first player offers exactly half of the total sum to the second player. The multiple-play ultimatum game allows for players to send signals. Therefore, the receiver can punish a player who doesn’t share enough. The multiple-play ultimatum game generally results in less cooperation because both players fall into a back-and-forth pattern of trying to punish the other player.
Can you explain what the Pure Coordination Game is and provide an example of one?
Why is a cooperative outcome more likely in an often repeated prisoners’ dilemma?
In the sequential games such as the sequential Battle of the Sexes, why does the Nash equilibrium allow for outcomes with noncredible threats?
Suppose China and the US are deciding whether to join an international agreement to mitigate climate change. The matrix below contains payoffs that represent each country’s net benefit from their decisions. Use this information to answer Question 24. CHINA USA Join Agreement Do Not Join Agreement Join Agreement (100,100) (0,125) Do Not Join Agreement (125,0) (25,25) [24] What does each country decide to do in a Nash equilibrium? AND What is the efficient outcome? Nash: Efficient:
Demonstrate the concept of coordination failure by using the payoff matrix and prove that, Coordination failure among economic agents can lead to an inefficient outcome while the opposite can guide to an efficient outcome. Use any hypothetical scenario to justify your analysis.
Consider the following game played by four individuals, players 1, 2, 3, and 4. Each individual has $10,000. Each player can donate between $0 and $10,000 to build a public park that costs $20,000. If they collect enough money, they construct the park, which is worth $9,000 to each of them. However, if they collect less than $20,000, they cannot build a park. Furthermore, regardless of whether the park is built or not, individuals lose any donations that they make. a) Describe the Nash equilibria for a simultaneous game. What makes them equilibria? Hint: There are many equilibria, so you may want to use a mathematical expression! b) Suppose that players 1, 2, and 3, each donate $4,000 for the park. How much will player 4 donate and why. What are the resulting payoffs for the players? c) Suppose instead that player 1 donated first, player 2 second, player 3 third, and player 4 last. Furthermore, players could only donate in intervals of 1,000 (0, $1,000, $2,000, etc.). How much will…
In the following 3-player game, the payoffs represent the number of years in jail. The equilibrium is ________ Group of answer choices Eric and Ned denies. Eric and Tim confess, but Ned denies. Eric confesses, Ned and Tim deny. Eric and Time deny, but Ned confesses