1
$\begingroup$

Let's say I'm involved in some project (e.g. humanity) in which I can invest some time, but I have no direct information about the amount of time spent by the other project members.

Some common sense idea is to spend the exact amount of time such that the project would just succeed if every member spends the same amount as me (sustainability).

Is there any game theoretic consideration supporting this rationale? If the success of the project is a boolean value (i.e. no degrees), this strategy can't be a Nash equilibrium, as long as the invested time is measured continuously.

  • 0
    Assuming that the individual value of sufficient total investment exceeds the amount that each would have to invest, what you suggest is a Nash equilibrium (nobody has an incentive to change if others stay the same). There are likely to be many other Nash Equilibria. The problem comes in reaching that point: people have an incentive to understate how much they individually value collective success, and when they all understate this then the project fails. – 2017-02-19
  • 1
    In experimental game theory, this setup is usually known as ``public goods game''. – 2017-02-23
  • 0
    @Henry thanks for the comment, yeah, I can now totally see how this is an Nash equilibrium, can't tell anymore what I was thinking when I was posting this question :/ – 2017-04-14

0 Answers 0