Barrett's paradox of cooperation in the case of quasi‐linear utilities

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
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":"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) <jats:italic>A priori</jats:italic>, 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.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.10447","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","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.
准线性效用情况下的巴雷特合作悖论
本文通过研究寻求维护公共利益的代理人组成的稳定联盟的成功与否,来探讨国际协议理论。在巴利加和马斯金的基础上,我们考虑了一个具有准线性效用的同质代理人模型,其形式为 ,其中, 是总贡献,指数是总效用的弹性。当弹性值在其自然范围内增加时,我们证明了以下五个关于稳定联盟形成的主要结果:(i) 合作差距(表征为大联盟的福利与竞争性单一联盟的福利之比)增长到无穷大,我们将其解释为对拯救公共利益的冲动或需求的度量;(ii) 稳定联盟的规模从 1 增长到;(iii) 稳定联盟的福利与竞争性单一联盟的福利之比增长到无穷大;(iv) 稳定联盟的福利与大联盟的福利之比 "减少"(很多),直到稳定联盟的成员数达到近似值,之后 "增加"(很多);以及 (v) 与自由搭便车者相比,稳定联盟的增长会造成联盟成员的更大损失。结果(v)有两个主要缺点:(a)先验地,很难 "说服 "代理人成为稳定联盟的成员;(b)与结果(i)和(iv)一起,它解释并导致了 "悲观 "的巴雷特合作悖论,即使在文献中考虑不多的情况下也是如此:稳定联盟的福利与大联盟的福利之比很小,即使在自由搭便车者很少(或只有一个)、合作差距很大的极端情况下也是如此。从 "乐观 "的角度看,结果(iii)表明稳定联盟比竞争性的单人联盟要好得多。此外,结果(ii)还证明,合作悖论在合作悖论值越大时越容易解决,因此大联盟是稳定的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信