Advertisement

Compliance with Social Norms as an Evolutionary Stable Equilibrium

  • Francisco CaboEmail author
  • Ana García-González
  • Mercedes Molpeceres-Abella
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 280)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the compliance with social norms optimally established by a benevolent central planner. Since compliance is costly, agents have an incentive to free-ride on others, in a public good game. We distinguish two types of agents: standard pro-self agents (Sanchos) whose payoffs are defined by a prisoner’s dilemma game dominated by the non-compliance strategy, and pro-social Quixotes, who still have an incentive to free-ride, although prefer compliance over mutual defection (as in a snowdrift game). Compliance is analyzed in a two-population evolutionary game considering an imitative revision protocol. Individuals from one population play against and imitate agents within their own but also the other population. Inter-population interaction and imitation allow us to investigate under which circumstances some Sanchos might imitate compliant Quixotes, so escaping the non-compliance equilibrium characteristic of an isolated population of Sanchos. Correspondingly, we analyze the conditions under which the interaction with the population of selfish Sanchos increases or decreases the compliance rate among altruistic Quixotes.

Keywords

Two-population evolutionary game Heterogeneous preferences Prisoner’s dilemma game Snowdrift game Social norms 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Spanish Government (research projects ECO2014-52343-P and ECO2017-82227-P) and by the Regional Government of Castilla y León (research projects VA024P17 and VA105G18), co-financed by FEDER funds.

References

  1. Alger, I., & Weibull, J. W. (2013). Homo Moralis-preference evolution under incomplete information and assortative matching. Econometrica, 81, 2269–2302.  https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA10637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J. (1988). Why free ride? Journal of Public Economics, 37(3), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(88)90043-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure Altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Journal of Econometrics, 100(401), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133 Google Scholar
  4. Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: The effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 10(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bontems, P., & Rotillon, G. (2000). Honesty in environmental compliance games. European Journal of Law and Economics, 10(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018786721348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breton, M., Sbragia, L., & Zaccour, G. (2010). A dynamic model for international environmental agreements. Environmental and Resource Economics, 45, 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9304-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabo, F., & García-González, A. (2018). Inter-population interaction in a world of Quixotes and Sanchos. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. Online-first.Google Scholar
  8. de Young, R. (1996). Some psychological aspects of reduced consumption behavior: The role of intrinsic satisfaction and competence motivation. Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 358–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doebeli, M., Hauert, C., & Killingback, T. (2004). The evolutionary origin of cooperators and defectors. Science, 5697, 859–862.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1101456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grafton, R. Q., Kompas, T., & Long, N. V. (2017). A brave new world? Kantian–Nashian interaction and the dynamics of global climate change mitigation. European Economic Review, 99, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Güth, W. (1995). An evolutionary approach to explaining cooperative behavior by reciprocal incentives. International Journal of Games Theory, 24(4), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01243036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Güth, W., & Yaari, M. (1992). Explaining reciprocal behavior in simple strategic games: An evolutionary approach. In U. Witt (Ed.), Explaining process and change: Approaches to evolutionary economics (pp. 23–34). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  13. Miller, J. H., & Andreoni, J. (1991). Can evolutionary dynamics explain free riding in experiments? Economics Letters, 36(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(91)90047-O CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sandholm, W. H. (2010). Population games and evolutionary dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco Cabo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ana García-González
    • 1
  • Mercedes Molpeceres-Abella
    • 2
  1. 1.IMUVaUniversidad de ValladolidValladolidSpain
  2. 2.Universidad de ValladolidValladolidSpain

Personalised recommendations