Coalition-structured governance improves cooperation to provide public goods

While the benefits of common and public goods are shared, they tend to be scarce when contributions are provided voluntarily. Failure to cooperate in the provision or preservation of these goods is fundamental to sustainability challenges, ranging from local fisheries to global climate change. In the real world, such cooperative dilemmas occur in multiple interactions with complex strategic interests and frequently without full information. We argue that voluntary cooperation enabled across overlapping coalitions (akin to polycentricity) not only facilitates a higher generation of non-excludable public goods, but it may also allow evolution toward a more cooperative, stable, and inclusive approach to governance. Contrary to any previous study, we show that these merits of multi-coalition governance are far more general than the singular examples occurring in the literature, and they are robust under diverse conditions of excludability, congestion of the non-excludable public good, and arbitrary shapes of the return-to-contribution function. We first confirm the intuition that a single coalition without enforcement and with players pursuing their self-interest without knowledge of returns to contribution is prone to cooperative failure. Next, we demonstrate that the same pessimistic model but with a multi-coalition structure of governance experiences relatively higher cooperation by enabling recognition of marginal gains of cooperation in the game at stake. In the absence of enforcement, public-goods regimes that evolve through a proliferation of voluntary cooperative forums can maintain and increase cooperation more successfully than singular, inclusive regimes.Supported by US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (D17AC00005), National Science Foundation grant GEO-1211972, and Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT) through grants PTDC/MAT/STA/3358/2014, PTDC/EEI-SII/5081/2014, and UID/BIA/04050/2013. P.M.H. was supported by the Walbridge Fund at the Princeton Environmental Institute

Retrospective model-based inference guides model-free credit assignment

An extensive reinforcement learning literature shows that organisms assign credit efficiently, even under conditions of state uncertainty. However, little is known about credit-assignment when state uncertainty is subsequently resolved. Here, we address this problem within the framework of an interaction between model-free (MF) and model-based (MB) control systems. We present and support experimentally a theory of MB retrospective-inference. Within this framework, a MB system resolves uncertainty that prevailed when actions were taken thus guiding an MF credit-assignment. Using a task in which there was initial uncertainty about the lotteries that were chosen, we found that when participants’ momentary uncertainty about which lottery had generated an outcome was resolved by provision of subsequent information, participants preferentially assigned credit within a MF system to the lottery they retrospectively inferred was responsible for this outcome. These findings extend our knowledge about the range of MB functions and the scope of system interactions

Reward and punishment in climate change dilemmas

Mitigating climate change effects involves strategic decisions by individuals that may choose to limit their emissions at a cost. Everyone shares the ensuing benefits and thereby individuals can free ride on the effort of others, which may lead to the tragedy of the commons. For this reason, climate action can be conveniently formulated in terms of Public Goods Dilemmas often assuming that a minimum collective effort is required to ensure any benefit, and that decision-making may be contingent on the risk associated with future losses. Here we investigate the impact of reward and punishment in this type of collective endeavors - coined as collective-risk dilemmas - by means of a dynamic, evolutionary approach. We show that rewards (positive incentives) are essential to initiate cooperation, mostly when the perception of risk is low. On the other hand, we find that sanctions (negative incentives) are instrumental to maintain cooperation. Altogether, our results are gratifying, given the a-priori limitations of effectively implementing sanctions in international agreements. Finally, we show that whenever collective action is most challenging to succeed, the best results are obtained when both rewards and sanctions are synergistically combined into a single policy.This research was supported by Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT) through grants PTDC/EEISII/5081/2014 and PTDC/MAT/STA/3358/2014 and by multiannual funding of INESC-ID and CBMA (under the projects UID/CEC/50021/2019 and UID/BIA/04050/2013). F.P.S. acknowledges support from the James S. McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative in Understanding Dynamic and Multi-scale Systems Postdoctoral Fellowship Award. All authors declare no competing financial or non-financial interests in relation to the work described

Social dilemmas among unequals

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Research via the DOI in this record.Direct reciprocity is a powerful mechanism for evolution of cooperation, based on repeated interactions. It requires that interacting individuals are sufficiently equal, such that everyone faces similar consequences when they cooperate or defect. Yet inequality is ubiquitous among humansand is generally considered to undermine cooperation and welfar. Most previous models of reciprocity neglect inequality. They assume that individuals are the same in all relevant aspects. Here we introduce a general framework to study direct reciprocity among unequals. Our model allows for multiple sources of inequality. Subjects can differ in their endowments, their productivities, and in how much they benefit from public goods. We find that extreme inequality prevents cooperation. But if subjects differ in productivity, some endowment inequality can be necessary for cooperation to prevail. Our mathematical predictions are supported by a behavioral experiment where we vary the subjects’ endowments and their productivities. We observe that overall welfare is maximized when the two sources of heterogeneity are aligned, such that more productive individuals receive higher endowments. In contrast, when endowments and productivities are misaligned, cooperation quickly breaks down. Our findings have implications for policy-makers concerned with equity, efficiency, and public goods provisioning.European Research Council Start GrantGraph GamesAustrian Science Fund (FWF)Office of Naval ResearchJohn Templeton FoundationISTFELLOW program

Participation, knowledge production, and evaluative research: participation by different actors in a mental health study

This article reflects on the interrelations between participation, knowledge production, and public policy evaluation in light of issues from our own experience with evaluative research on a municipal network of Psychosocial Care Centers (CAPS) in Brazil. The article discusses the coordination of the complex process and the potentials and limits of partnerships for conducting qualitative evaluative studies in mental health with participation by different social actors. The authors conclude that qualitative evaluative research aligned with the perspective of including different points of view representing various segments is the best approach for understanding the numerous spin-offs from the implementation of services linked to the Brazilian psychiatric reform movement, given the inherent specificities of the mental health field.No presente texto apresentamos considerações sobre pesquisa avaliativa qualitativa e participativa com base em investigação desta natureza realizada junto a uma rede municipal de Centros de Atenção Psicossocial (CAPS) ligados ao Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). A coordenação do complexo processo, bem como as potencialidades e limites do estabelecimento de parcerias para a realização de trabalhos de investigação avaliativa qualitativa em saúde mental, com a inclusão de diferentes atores sociais, são aqui discutidas. Concluímos que a pesquisa avaliativa qualitativa aliada à perspectiva de inclusão de distintos pontos de vista dos vários segmentos envolvidos é a que melhor se adequa à compreensão dos muitos desdobramentos oriundos da implementação de serviços ligados ao movimento de reforma psiquiátrica brasileira, dado as especificidades inerentes ao campo da saúde mental.Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)Universidade Estadual de Campinas FCMUNIFESPSciEL

Co-evolutionary dynamics of collective action with signaling for a quorum

Collective signaling for a quorum is found in a wide range of organisms that face collective action problems whose successful solution requires the participation of some quorum of the individuals present. These range from humans, to social insects, to bacteria. The mechanisms involved, the quorum required, and the size of the group may vary. Here we address the general question of the evolution of collective signaling at a high level of abstraction. We investigate the evolutionary dynamics of a population engaging in a signaling N-person game theoretic model. Parameter settings allow for loners and cheaters, and for costly or costless signals. We find a rich dynamics, showing how natural selection, operating on a population of individuals endowed with the simplest strategies, is able to evolve a costly signaling system that allows individuals to respond appropriately to different states of Nature. Signaling robustly promotes cooperative collective action, in particular when coordinated action is most needed and difficult to achieve. Two different signaling systems may emerge depending on Nature's most prevalent states.Funding: This research was supported by FEDER through POFC - COMPETE, FCT-Portugal through grants SFRH/BD/86465/2012, PTDC/MAT/122897/2010, EXPL/EEI-SII/2556/2013, and by multi-annual funding of CMAF-UL, CBMA-UM and INESC-ID (under the projects PEst-OE/BIA/UI4050/2014 and UID/CEC/50021/2013) provided by FCT-Portugal, and by Fundacao Calouste Gulbenkian through the "Stimulus to Research" program for young researchers. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Advantages of a Polycentric Approach to Climate Change Policy

Lack of progress in global climate negotiations has led scholars to reconsider polycentric approaches to climate policy. Several examples of subglobal mechanisms to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions have been touted, but it remains unclear why they might achieve better climate outcomes than global negotiations alone. Decades of work conducted by researchers associated with the Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University have emphasized two chief advantages of polycentric approaches over monocentric ones: they provide more opportunities for experimentation and learning to improve policies over time, and they increase communications and interactions — formal and informal, bilateral and multilateral — among parties to help build the mutual trust needed for increased cooperation. A wealth of theoretical, empirical and experimental evidence supports the polycentric approach