|
on Evolutionary Economics |
| By: | Wolff, Irenaeus |
| Abstract: | Evolutionary game theory has shown that in environments characterised by a social-dilemma situation punishment may be an adaptive behaviour. Experimental evidence closely corresponds to this finding but yields contradictory results on the cooperation-enhancing effect of punishment if players are allowed to retaliate against their punishers. The present study sets out to examine the question of whether cooperation will still be part of an evolutionary stable strategy if we allow for counterpunishment opportunities in a theoretic model and tries to reconcile the seemingly contradictory findings from the laboratory. We find that the apparent contradictions can be explained by a difference in the number of retaliation stages employed (one vs many) and even small differences in the degree of retaliativeness. |
| Keywords: | Public goods; Strong reciprocity; Conformism; Counter-punishment; Evolution of behavior |
| JEL: | H4 H41 C90 C7 C73 |
| Date: | 2009–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:16923&r=evo |
| By: | Margit Osterloh; Bruno S. Frey |
| Abstract: | Peer reviews and rankings today are the backbone of research governance, but recently came under scrutiny. They take explicitly or implicitly agency theory as a theoretical basis. The emerging psychological economics opens a new perspective. As scholarly research is a mainly curiosity driven endeavor, we include intrinsic motivation and supportive feedback by the peers as important determinants of scholarly behavior. We discuss whether a stronger emphasis on selection and socialization offers an alternative to the present regime of academic rankings. |
| Keywords: | peer reviews; rankings; research governance; agency theory; psychological economics; new public management; economics of science; control theory |
| Date: | 2009–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cra:wpaper:2009-17&r=evo |
| By: | Rockenbach, Bettina; Wolff, Irenaeus |
| Abstract: | Considerable experimental evidence has been collected on how to solve the public-good dilemma. In a 'first generation' of experiments, this was done by presenting subjects with a pre-specified game out of a huge variety of rules. A 'second generation' of experiments introduced subjects to two different environments and had subjects choose between those. The present study is part of a 'third generation', asking subjects not only to choose between two environments but to design their own rule sets for the public-good problem. Whereas preceding 'third-generation' experiments had subjects design and improve their strategies for a specified game, this study is the first to make an attempt at answering the question of how people would shape their environment to solve the public-good dilemma were they given full discretion over the rules of the game. We explore this question of endogenous institution design in an iterated design-and-play procedure. We observe a strong usage of punishment and redistribution components, which diminishes over time. Instead, subjects successfully contextualize the situation. Interestingly, feedback on fellow-players’ individual behavior tends to be rendered opaque. On average, rules do improve with respect to the welfare they elicit, albeit only to a limited degree. |
| Keywords: | Public good; strategy method; experiment; public choice |
| JEL: | C9 D7 D71 C92 D72 C72 |
| Date: | 2009–07–17 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:16922&r=evo |