Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T06:25:34.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Robert Axelrod
Robert Axelrod*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the conditions under which cooperation will emerge in a world of egoists without central authority. This problem plays an important role in such diverse fields as political philosophy, international politics, and economic and social exchange. The problem is formalized as an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma with pairwise interaction among a population of individuals.

Results from three approaches are reported: the tournament approach, the ecological approach, and the evolutionary approach. The evolutionary approach is the most general since all possible strategies can be taken into account. A series of theorems is presented which show: (1) the conditions under which no strategy can do any better than the population average if the others are using the reciprocal cooperation strategy of TIT FOR TAT, (2) the necessary and sufficient conditions for a strategy to be collectively stable, and (3) how cooperation can emerge from a small cluster of discriminating individuals even when everyone else is using a strategy of unconditional defection.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 306 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Art, Robert J. (1969). The TFX Decision: McNamara and the Military. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Axelrod, Robert (1980a). “Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 24: 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, Robert (1980b). “More Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 24: 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, Robert, and Hamilton, William D. (1981). “The Evolution of Cooperation.” Science 2: 1390–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogue, Allan G., and Marlaire, Mark Paul (1975). “Of Mess and Men: The Boardinghouse and Congressional Voting, 1821-1842.” American Journal of Political Science 19: 207–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, William D. (1964). “The Genetical Theory of Social Behavior (I and II).” Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16; 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, William D. (1967). “Extraordinary Sex Ratios.” Science 156: 477–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardin, Garrett (1968). “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162: 1243–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardin, Russell (1971). “Collective Action as an Agreeable n-Prisoner's Dilemma.” Behavioral Science 16: 472–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinckley, Barbara (1972). “Coalitions in Congress: Size and Ideological Distance.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 26: 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshleifer, J. (1978). “Natural Economy versus Political Economy.” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 1: 319–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Nigel (1971). Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert (1978). “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma.” World Politics 30: 167–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Charles O. (1977). “Will Reform Change Congress?” In Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. (eds.). Congress Reconsidered. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Kurz, Mordecai (1977). “Altruistic Equilibrium.” In Balassa, Bela and Nelson, Richard (eds.), Economic Progress, Private Values, and Public Policy. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael (1977). “Intergovernmental Policy on Multinational Corporations, A Simple Model of Tax Bargaining.” European Journal of Political Research 5: 363–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan, and Raiffa, Howard (1957). Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lumsden, Malvern (1973). “The Cyprus Conflict as a Prisoner's Dilemma.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 17: 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Donald R. (1960). U.S. Senators and Their World. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, Martin (1974). The Bankers. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. (1975). Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (1974). “The Theory of Games and the Evolution of Animal Conflict.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 47: 209–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (1978). “The Evolution of Behavior.” Scientific American 239: 176–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, John, and Price, G. R. (1973). “The Logic of Animal Conflict.” Nature 246: 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur Jr., (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ornstein, Norman, Peabody, Robert L., and Rhode, David W. (1977). “The Changing Senate: From the 1950s to the 1970s.” In Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. (eds.), Congress Reconsidered. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Patterson, Samuel (1978). “The Semi-Sovereign Congress.” In King, Anthony (ed.), The New American Political System. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson (1968). “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 62: 144–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, Anatol (1960). Fights, Games, and Debates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. (1973). “Hockey Helmets, Concealed Weapons, and Daylight Savings: A Study of Binary Choices with Externalities.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 17: 381–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. (1978). “Micromoiivcs and Macrobchavior.” In Schelling, Thomas (ed.), Micromotives and Microbehavior. New York: Norton, pp. 9–43.Google Scholar
Shubik, Martin (1959). Strategy and Market Structure. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Shubik, Martin (1970). “Game Theory, Behavior, and the Paradox of the Prisoner's Dilemma: Three Solutions.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 14: 181–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Margaret Bayard (1906). The First Forty Years of Washington Society. New York: Scribner's.Google Scholar
Snyder, Glenn H. (1971). “‘Prisoner's Dilemma’ and ‘Chicken’ Models in International Politics.” International Studies Quarterly 15: 66–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Michael (1976). Anarchy and Cooperation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Trivers, Robert L. (1971). “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism.” Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rex, Warner, trans. (1960). War Commentaries of Caesar. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Wilson, David Sloan (1979). Natural Selection of Populations and Communities. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
Young, James Sterling (1966). The Washington Community, 1800-1828. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.