The Role of Non-Monetary and Strategic Considerations in the Public Good Games

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmitry A. Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Good Games

scholarly journals The Role of the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex in Public Good and Public Bad Games: Evidence From a tDCS Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuyou Chen ◽  
Xinbo Lu ◽  
Yuzhen Li ◽  
Lulu Zeng ◽  
Ping Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Public Good ◽  
Cooperative Behavior ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Gains And Losses ◽  
Public Good Games

Although humans constitute an exceptionally cooperative species that is able to collaborate on large scales for common benefits, cooperation remains a longstanding puzzle in biological and social science. Moreover, cooperation is not always related to resource allocation and gains but is often related to losses. Revealing the neurological mechanisms and brain regions related to cooperation is important for reinforcing cooperation-related gains and losses. Recent neuroscience studies have found that the decision-making process of cooperation is involved in the function of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC). In the present study, we aimed to investigate the causal role of the VMPFC in cooperative behavior concerning gains and losses through the application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). We integrated cooperation-related gains and losses into a unified paradigm. Based on the paradigm, we researched cooperation behaviors regarding gains in standard public good games and introduced public bad games to investigate cooperative behavior regarding losses. Our study revealed that the VMPFC plays different roles concerning gains and losses in situations requiring cooperation. Anodal stimulation over the VMPFC decreased cooperative behavior in public bad games, whereas stimulation over the VMPFC did not change cooperative behavior in public good games. Moreover, participants’ beliefs about others’ cooperation were changed in public bad games but not in public good games. Finally, participants’ cooperative attitudes were not influenced in the public good or public bad games under the three stimulation conditions.

The Legal Framework for Foundations in the Habsburg Monarchy from 1750 to 1918

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-172
Author(s):  
Gabriele Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The State ◽  
Habsburg Monarchy ◽  
The Public ◽  
Regulation And Supervision ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
The Law

Foundations, as permanent funds established by a certain legal act, can serve manifold purposes, but often pursue charitable goals. As such, they play an important role for the public good. Therefore, states always had an interest in fostering foundations by providing a pertinent legal framework. In Austria, this topic has not yet been the focus of scholarship. Through this study some light is shed on the implementation of the law on foundations in the Habsburg Monarchy. It focuses on the role of the state and its legal system regarding the regulation and supervision of foundations from 1750 to 1918. This period is characterized by the sovereigns’ endeavor to regulate the position of foundations via extensive legislation. In particular, a system of oversight for foundations was created in order to guarantee the attainment of their charitable goals. In fact, this system prevailed until the end of the 20thcentury.

scholarly journals Heterogeneous groups cooperate in public good problems despite normative disagreements about individual contribution levels

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kasper Otten ◽  
Vincent Buskens ◽  
Wojtek Przepiorka ◽  
Naomi Ellemers
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
Public Good ◽  
Individual Contribution ◽  
Public Goods Game ◽  
Homogeneous Groups ◽  
The Public ◽  
Heterogeneous Groups ◽  
Good Provision ◽  
Good Individual

Abstract Norms can promote human cooperation to provide public goods. Yet, the potential of norms to promote cooperation may be limited to homogeneous groups in which all members benefit equally from the public good. Individual heterogeneity in the benefits of public good provision is commonly conjectured to bring about normative disagreements that harm cooperation. However, the role of these normative disagreements remains unclear because they are rarely directly measured or manipulated. In a laboratory experiment, we first measure participants’ views on the appropriate way to contribute to a public good with heterogeneous returns. We then use this information to sort people into groups that either agree or disagree on these views, thereby manipulating group-level disagreement on normative views. Participants subsequently make several incentivized contribution decisions in a public goods game with peer punishment. We find that although there are considerable disagreements about individual contribution levels in heterogeneous groups, these disagreements do not impede cooperation. While cooperation is maintained because low contributors are punished, participants do not use punishment to impose their normative views on others. The contribution levels at which groups cooperate strongly relate to the average normative views of these groups.

A Social Media Manifesto

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Pitts
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Public Good ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People ◽  
Healthcare Marketing ◽  
The One ◽  
Hard Place

The role of marketing communications is to advance the bottom line and the public good – and not necessarily in that order. Giving back is an integral part of the New Normal. And there has never been a better tool to accomplish this mission than social media.But healthcare marketing –and particularly of the regulated variety --is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, marketers understand the importance and opportunity in social media. It’s where the people are. It’s where the action is. But then there are all those pesky regulatory concerns.As Walter O’Malley –the man who moved the Brooklyn Dodgers to Los Angeles once commented, “The future is just one damn thing after another.”

scholarly journals Classroom Games: Voluntary Provision of a Public Good

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 209-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles A Holt ◽  
Susan K Laury
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
Public Good ◽  
Fund Raising ◽  
Public Goods Game ◽  
Role Of Government ◽  
The Public ◽  
Voluntary Provision ◽  
Good Problem

This paper describes a simple public goods game, implemented with playing cards in a classroom setup. Students choose whether to contribute to the provision of a public good in a situation where it is privately optimal not to contribute, but socially optimal to contribute fully. This exercise motivates discussion of altruism, strategies for private fund-raising, and the role of government in resolving the public good problem.

scholarly journals Is the Public Good Role of Higher Education Under Attack?

2017 ◽  
pp. 2-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Hazelkorn
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Public Good ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
At Home

Higher education has long argued that it is a public good because of its contributionto societal goals. These assumptions are coming under growing public scrutiny asuniversities seek to pursue their own agenda, at home and increasinglyinternationally. This article looks at some of the issues.

scholarly journals Deciding how to decide on public goods provision: The role of instrumental versus intrinsic motives

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 205316802110141
Author(s):  
Philipp Harms ◽  
Claudia Landwehr ◽  
Maximilian Lutz ◽  
Markus Tepe
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Intrinsic Value ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
Public Good Provision ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
The Public ◽  
Second Stage ◽  
Good Provision ◽  
Alternative Decision

What determines citizens’ preferences over alternative decision-making procedures – the personal gain associated with a procedure, or the intrinsic value assigned to it? To answer this question, we present results of a laboratory experiment in which participants select a procedure to decide on the provision of a public good. In the first stage, they choose between majority voting and delegation to a welfare-maximizing algorithm. In the second stage, subjects either vote on the public good provision, or the decision is taken by the algorithm. We define three experimental conditions in which participants receive information about whether a majority in the group faces a positive or negative pay-off from the public good provision, about whether there is a positive group benefit from its provision, or neither kind of information. Findings confirm the importance of instrumental motives in procedural choices. At the same time, however, a significant share of participants chose a procedure that does not maximize their individual benefit. While majority voting seems to be preferred for intrinsic values of fairness and equality, support for delegation to the welfare-maximizing algorithm increases if the group benefit from a public good is known – even in participants who are net payers for its provision.

scholarly journals Is the Public Good Role of Higher Education Under Attack?

2017 ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Ellen Hazelkorn
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Public Good ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
At Home

Higher education has long argued that it is a public good because of its contributionto societal goals. These assumptions are coming under growing public scrutiny asuniversities seek to pursue their own agenda, at home and increasinglyinternationally. This article looks at some of the issues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document