Game theory is not the best way to think about the tragedy of the commons.
Elinor Ostrom got in 2009 the “nobel prize” in economics for her work of studying how people actually deal in the real world with the tragedy of the commons. It makes much more sense to go to her empirically derived work than to think in terms of game theory.
She suggests 8 principles:
Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties);
Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions;
Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;
Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;
A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access;
Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities; and
In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.
Empirical study of a lot of cases of the tragedy of the commons and an analysis where people found a way to successfully deal with the issue versus cases where they didn’t.
The fact that she actually did study analysed >100 different real world episodes of tragedy was the work that earned her the “nobel prize”.
We are talking about the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” and not one of the Nobel Prizes that were established by Alfred Nobel. Alfred Nobel didn’t thought that economics was a discipline that needed a prize and his descendants sued over this dispute.
Saying “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” is a bit long so I go for a shorter version and if I would say Sveriges Riksbank Prize nobody would know what I’m talking about. By using the quotes around “nobel prize” I mark that I’m uncomfortable with calling the prize as it were one of the regular nobel prizes but I still have a short phrase that’s recognizable by my audience.
Game theory is not the best way to think about the tragedy of the commons.
Elinor Ostrom got in 2009 the “nobel prize” in economics for her work of studying how people actually deal in the real world with the tragedy of the commons. It makes much more sense to go to her empirically derived work than to think in terms of game theory.
She suggests 8 principles:
But how do these rules emerge and why?
Empirical study of a lot of cases of the tragedy of the commons and an analysis where people found a way to successfully deal with the issue versus cases where they didn’t.
The fact that she actually did study analysed >100 different real world episodes of tragedy was the work that earned her the “nobel prize”.
Out of curiosity, why the quotes around “nobel prize”?
We are talking about the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” and not one of the Nobel Prizes that were established by Alfred Nobel. Alfred Nobel didn’t thought that economics was a discipline that needed a prize and his descendants sued over this dispute.
Saying “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” is a bit long so I go for a shorter version and if I would say Sveriges Riksbank Prize nobody would know what I’m talking about. By using the quotes around “nobel prize” I mark that I’m uncomfortable with calling the prize as it were one of the regular nobel prizes but I still have a short phrase that’s recognizable by my audience.
IIRC I’ve seen it referred to as Nobel Memorial Prize, which might be a decent compromise.
If I remember right that’s the Wikipedia consensus compromise solution. I personally prefer the version with quotes I made up myself.