Trust in Public Organizations: An Explanation for Noncooperative Behavior

  • István Takács
  • Katalin Takács-György
Chapter

Abstract

Using game theory, this chapter discusses the economic aspects of the noncooperative behavior of partners. Trust is a fundamental requirement in collaboration and cooperation among partners. Due to information asymmetry between the participants and a lack of confidence, individual and social expenditures may be economically unreasonable. This chapter uses game theory to introduce and explain how information asymmetry among members of the society and differences between the interests of the partners influence public trust. The point of view of this approach, despite its altruism, is that all people and (nonbusiness) organizations that compete and try to maximize their benefits are participants in different types of games.

Keywords

Information asymmetries Theory of games Transaction costs Cooperative behavior 

References

  1. Akerlof, G. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Baranyai, Z. (2010). Az együttműködés elméleti és gyakorlati kérdései a magyar mezőgazdasági géphasználatban (Theoretical and practical questions of cooperation in agricultural machine use in Hungary) (Ph.D. thesis). Gödöllő.Google Scholar
  4. Baranyai, Z., & Takács, I. (2010). Willingness to cooperate among field crop farms: An illustration from Hungary. Food Economics – Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section C Economy, 7(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barron, J., & Gjerde, K. (1997). Peer pressure in an agency relationship. Journal of Labour Economics, 15(2), 234–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coase, H. R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coase, H. R. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust. Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 49–72). New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  10. Gallo, C. (2016). The storyteller’s secret: From TED-speakers to business legends, why some ideas catch on and others don’t. New York: St. Martin’s Press, LLC.Google Scholar
  11. Hallowell, E., & Raley, J. (1994). Driven to distribution: Recognizing and coping with attention deficit disorder from childhood through adulthood (p. 45), New York: Anchor Books, 400 p. In C. Gallo (2016), The storyteller’s secret: From TED-speakers to business legends, why some ideas catch on and others don’t. New York: St. Martin’s Press, LLC.Google Scholar
  12. Holmstrom, B. (1982). Moral hazard in teams. Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kandel, E., & Lazear, E. P. (1992). Peer pressure and partnerships. Journal of Political Economy, 100(41), 801–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kieser, A., & Ebers, M. (2014). Organisationstheorien [Organization Theories] (7th Auflage, p. 524). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  15. Klein, B., Crawford, R., & Alchian, A. (1978). Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. Journal of Law and Economics, 21(2), 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kreps, D. M. (2005). Game theory and economic modelling (Clarendon Lectures in Economics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lane, C., & Bachmann, R. (2000). Trust within and between organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mech, D., & Cronin, M. A. (2010). Isle Royal study affirms ability of wolves to persist. Letter to the Editor. Biological Conservation, 143, 535–536.Google Scholar
  19. Megginson, L. C. (1963). Lessons from Europe for American business. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 44(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
  20. Mérő, L. (2017). Aminek nincs ára [Of which has not price]. HVG. 16.04.2017.Google Scholar
  21. Mowat, F. (1963). Never cry wolf. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.Google Scholar
  22. Radner, R. (1986). Repeated partnership games with imperfect monitoring and no discounting. The Review of Economic Studies, 60, 599–611.Google Scholar
  23. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, R. S., Burt, C. B., & Camerar, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Royer, S. J. (1999). Cooperative organizational strategies: A neo-institutional digest. Journal of Cooperatives, 14, 44–67.Google Scholar
  25. Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful – Economics as if people mattered. London: Blond & Briggs.Google Scholar
  26. Sholtes, P. R. (1998). The leader’s handbook: Making things happen – Getting things done. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Takács, I. (2012). Games of farmers – To cooperate or not? Annals of the Polish Association of Agricultural and Agribusiness Economists, 14(6), 260–266.Google Scholar
  28. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • István Takács
    • 1
  • Katalin Takács-György
    • 1
  1. 1.Óbuda University BudapestBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations