Replicator dynamics for optional public good games.

The public goods game represents a straightforward generalization of the prisoner's dilemma to an arbitrary number of players. Since the dominant strategy is to defect, both classical and evolutionary game theory predict the asocial outcome that no player contributes to the public goods. In contrast to the compulsory public goods game, optional participation provides a natural way to avoid deadlocks in the state of mutual defection. The three resulting strategies--collaboration or defection in the public goods game, as well as not joining at all--are studied by means of a replicator dynamics, which can be completely analysed in spite of the fact that the payoff terms are nonlinear. If cooperation is valuable enough, the dynamics exhibits a rock-scissors-paper type of cycling between the three strategies, leading to sizeable average levels of cooperation in the population. Thus, voluntary participation makes cooperation feasible. But for each strategy, the average payoff value remains equal to the earnings of those not participating in the public goods game.

[1]  W. Hamilton The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior , 1963, The American Naturalist.

[2]  R. Trivers The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism , 1971, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[3]  James P. Kahan,et al.  Cooperation and Group Size in the N-Person Prisoners' Dilemma , 1976 .

[4]  Ken Binmore,et al.  Game theory and the social contract , 1984 .

[5]  P. Richerson,et al.  The evolution of reciprocity in sizable groups. , 1988, Journal of theoretical biology.

[6]  R. Dawes,et al.  Social welfare, cooperators' advantage, and the option of not playing the game. , 1993 .

[7]  E. Sober,et al.  Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences , 1994 .

[8]  Jörgen W. Weibull,et al.  Evolutionary Game Theory , 1996 .

[9]  P. Maître PLAYING FAIR GAME THEORY AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT , 1994 .

[10]  P Kitcher,et al.  Evolution of altruism in optional and compulsory games. , 1995, Journal of theoretical biology.

[11]  J. Kagel,et al.  Handbook of Experimental Economics , 1997 .

[12]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Invasion Dynamics of the Finitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma , 1995 .

[13]  L. Dugatkin Cooperation Among Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective , 1997 .

[14]  C. Hauert,et al.  Effects of increasing the number of players and memory size in the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma: a numerical approach , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  Josef Hofbauer,et al.  Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics , 1998 .

[16]  K. Schlag Why Imitate, and If So, How?, : A Boundedly Rational Approach to Multi-armed Bandits , 1998 .

[17]  Hauert,et al.  Extending the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma without Synchrony. , 1998, Journal of theoretical biology.

[18]  E. Fehr,et al.  Altruistic punishment in humans , 2002, Nature.

[19]  C. Hauert,et al.  Volunteering as Red Queen Mechanism for Cooperation in Public Goods Games , 2002, Science.

[20]  M. Milinski,et al.  Do sticklebacks cooperate repeatedly in reciprocal pairs? , 1990, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.