Elvio Accinelli, Atefeh Afsar, Filipe Martins, José Martins, Bruno M.P.M. Oliveira, Jorge Oviedo, Alberto A. Pinto, Luis Quintas
{"title":"Barrett's paradox of cooperation in the case of quasi-linear utilities","authors":"Elvio Accinelli, Atefeh Afsar, Filipe Martins, José Martins, Bruno M.P.M. Oliveira, Jorge Oviedo, Alberto A. Pinto, Luis Quintas","doi":"10.1002/mma.10447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper fits in the theory of international agreements by studying the success of stable coalitions of agents seeking the preservation of a public good. Extending Baliga and Maskin, we consider a model of \n<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>N</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ N $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> homogeneous agents with quasi-linear utilities of the form \n<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msub>\n <mrow>\n <mi>u</mi>\n </mrow>\n <mrow>\n <mi>j</mi>\n </mrow>\n </msub>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <msub>\n <mrow>\n <mi>r</mi>\n </mrow>\n <mrow>\n <mi>j</mi>\n </mrow>\n </msub>\n <mo>;</mo>\n <mi>r</mi>\n <mo>)</mo>\n <mo>=</mo>\n <msup>\n <mrow>\n <mi>r</mi>\n </mrow>\n <mrow>\n <mi>α</mi>\n </mrow>\n </msup>\n <mo>−</mo>\n <msub>\n <mrow>\n <mi>r</mi>\n </mrow>\n <mrow>\n <mi>j</mi>\n </mrow>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ {u}_j\\left({r}_j;r\\right)&amp;amp;#x0003D;{r}&amp;amp;#x0005E;{\\alpha }-{r}_j $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>, where \n<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>r</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ r $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> is the aggregate contribution and the exponent \n<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>α</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ \\alpha $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> is the elasticity of the gross utility. When the value of the elasticity \n<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>α</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ \\alpha $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> increases in its natural range \n<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mn>0,1</mn>\n <mo>)</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ \\left(0,1\\right) $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>, we prove the following five main results in the formation of stable coalitions: (i) the gap of cooperation, characterized as the ratio of the welfare of the grand coalition to the welfare of the competitive singleton coalition grows to infinity, which we interpret as a measure of the urge or need to save the public good; (ii) the size of stable coalitions increases from 1 up to \n<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>N</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ N $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>; (iii) the ratio of the welfare of stable coalitions to the welfare of the competitive singleton coalition grows to infinity; (iv) the ratio of the welfare of stable coalitions to the welfare of the grand coalition “decreases” (a lot), up to when the number of members of the stable coalition is approximately \n<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>N</mi>\n <mo>/</mo>\n <mi>e</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ N/e $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> and after that it “increases” (a lot); and (v) the growth of stable coalitions occurs with a much greater loss of the coalition members when compared with free-riders. Result (v) has two major drawbacks: (a) <i>A priori</i>, it is difficult to “convince” agents to be members of the stable coalition and (b) together with results (i) and (iv), it explains and leads to the “pessimistic” Barrett's paradox of cooperation, even in a case not much considered in the literature: The ratio of the welfare of the stable coalitions against the welfare of the grand coalition is small, even in the extreme case where there are few (or a single) free-riders and the gap of cooperation is large. “Optimistically,” result (iii) shows that stable coalitions do much better than the competitive singleton coalition. Furthermore, result (ii) proves that the paradox of cooperation is resolved for larger values of \n<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>α</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$$ \\alpha $$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> so that the grand coalition is stabilized.</p>","PeriodicalId":49865,"journal":{"name":"Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences","volume":"48 2","pages":"2493-2516"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mma.10447","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This paper fits in the theory of international agreements by studying the success of stable coalitions of agents seeking the preservation of a public good. Extending Baliga and Maskin, we consider a model of
homogeneous agents with quasi-linear utilities of the form
, where
is the aggregate contribution and the exponent
is the elasticity of the gross utility. When the value of the elasticity
increases in its natural range
, we prove the following five main results in the formation of stable coalitions: (i) the gap of cooperation, characterized as the ratio of the welfare of the grand coalition to the welfare of the competitive singleton coalition grows to infinity, which we interpret as a measure of the urge or need to save the public good; (ii) the size of stable coalitions increases from 1 up to
; (iii) the ratio of the welfare of stable coalitions to the welfare of the competitive singleton coalition grows to infinity; (iv) the ratio of the welfare of stable coalitions to the welfare of the grand coalition “decreases” (a lot), up to when the number of members of the stable coalition is approximately
and after that it “increases” (a lot); and (v) the growth of stable coalitions occurs with a much greater loss of the coalition members when compared with free-riders. Result (v) has two major drawbacks: (a) A priori, it is difficult to “convince” agents to be members of the stable coalition and (b) together with results (i) and (iv), it explains and leads to the “pessimistic” Barrett's paradox of cooperation, even in a case not much considered in the literature: The ratio of the welfare of the stable coalitions against the welfare of the grand coalition is small, even in the extreme case where there are few (or a single) free-riders and the gap of cooperation is large. “Optimistically,” result (iii) shows that stable coalitions do much better than the competitive singleton coalition. Furthermore, result (ii) proves that the paradox of cooperation is resolved for larger values of
so that the grand coalition is stabilized.
期刊介绍:
Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences publishes papers dealing with new mathematical methods for the consideration of linear and non-linear, direct and inverse problems for physical relevant processes over time- and space- varying media under certain initial, boundary, transition conditions etc. Papers dealing with biomathematical content, population dynamics and network problems are most welcome.
Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences is an interdisciplinary journal: therefore, all manuscripts must be written to be accessible to a broad scientific but mathematically advanced audience. All papers must contain carefully written introduction and conclusion sections, which should include a clear exposition of the underlying scientific problem, a summary of the mathematical results and the tools used in deriving the results. Furthermore, the scientific importance of the manuscript and its conclusions should be made clear. Papers dealing with numerical processes or which contain only the application of well established methods will not be accepted.
Because of the broad scope of the journal, authors should minimize the use of technical jargon from their subfield in order to increase the accessibility of their paper and appeal to a wider readership. If technical terms are necessary, authors should define them clearly so that the main ideas are understandable also to readers not working in the same subfield.