Effects of Network Structure on Costly Coordination

Coordination is often required for satisfactory solutions to social problems. Two factors that affect the ability of groups to solve coordination problems are the information actors have about the actions of others and the costs of taking an action. We utilize a network approach to model the structure of communication between actors and test experimentally how the communication structure affects coordination when actions are costly. We find that the addition of costs causes a significant increase in the amount of time it takes for coordination to occur and that costs cause players to change the strategy they use to resolve the coordination dilemma. Furthermore, the effect of increased costs is not constant across the various network structures. Both more edges (communication) and higher degree variance (leadership) can attenuate the effect of costs to take an action. These results suggest that when designing or studying institutions we will want to account for the communication structures created by the institutions and how this structure may affect coordination.

[1]  Ramamohan Paturi,et al.  Connected Coordination: Network Structure and Group Coordination , 2009 .

[2]  F. Hernández The democratic dilemma , 2009 .

[3]  Barry R. Weingast,et al.  Coordination, Commitment, and Enforcement: The Case of the Merchant Guild , 1994, Journal of Political Economy.

[4]  Jihong Lee,et al.  Communication, Coordination and Networks , 2009 .

[5]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Cooperation and Contagion in Web-Based, Networked Public Goods Experiments , 2010, SECO.

[6]  R. M. Hutchins The democratic dilemma , 1951 .

[7]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age , 2003 .

[8]  S. McClurg,et al.  Social Networks and Political Participation: The Role of Social Interaction in Explaining Political Participation , 2003 .

[9]  Ramamohan Paturi,et al.  Does more connectivity help groups to solve social problems , 2011, EC '11.

[10]  G. Brady Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action , 1993 .

[11]  G. Mackie Ending Footbinding and Infibulation: A Convention Account , 1996 .

[12]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation , 1984 .

[13]  Carl M. Rhodes,et al.  Leadership and Credibility in N-Person Coordination Games , 1997 .

[14]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Formal modes of statistical inference for causal effects , 1990 .

[15]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[16]  Mathew D. McCubbins,et al.  Making Talk Cheap (and Problems Easy): How Political and Legal Institutions Can Facilitate Consensus , 2010 .

[17]  David Lewis Convention: A Philosophical Study , 1986 .

[18]  M. Kearns,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Coloring Problem on Human Subject Networks , 2006, Science.

[19]  Syngjoo Choi,et al.  Network architecture, salience and coordination , 2011, Games Econ. Behav..

[20]  T. Schelling,et al.  The Strategy of Conflict. , 1961 .

[21]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[22]  L. Vesterlund,et al.  After you--endogenous sequencing in voluntary contribution games , 2005 .

[23]  M. Degroot Reaching a Consensus , 1974 .

[24]  Leeat Yariv,et al.  An Experimental Study of Decentralized Matching , 2012 .

[25]  R. Calvert,et al.  Leadership and Its Basis in Problems of Social Coordination , 1992 .