Cited by 90Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesGame Theory and Voting Systems

Democratic decisions establish stable authorities that overcome the paradox of second-order punishment

Open access
Hilbe, Christian, Traulsen, Arne, Röhl, Torsten, Milinski, Manfred·2014·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Humans usually punish free riders but refuse to sanction those who cooperate but do not punish. However, such second-order punishment is essential to maintain cooperation. The central authorities established in modern societies punish both free riders and tax evaders. This is a paradox: would individuals who do not engage in second-order punishment strive for an authority that does? We address this puzzle with a mathematical model and an economic experiment. When individuals can choose between authorities by migrating between different communities, we find a costly bias against second-order punishment. When subjects use a majority vote instead, they vote for an authority with second-order punishment. These findings also suggest that other pressing social dilemmas could be solved by democratic voting.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1315273111

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Peer punishment is ineffective when the population is dominated by second-order free-riders.

    “As for peer punishment, it is ineffective when the population is dominated by second-order free-riders, i.e., individuals who contribute to the public goods but do not punish free-riders40,41.”

    From Cooperation without punishment (2023) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Discussion says second-order punishment is fundamental to the stability of decentralized peer punishment and that people are reluctant to sanction nonpunishers. This supports the claimed problem with second-order free-riders, but the paper does not specifically establish that peer punishment is ineffective when they dominate a population. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Schoenmakers S (2013) Pool-punishment and opportunistic cooperation in voluntary and compulsory games. An evolutionary game theory model. MS thesis (Univ of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hilbe, C., Traulsen, A., Röhl, T., & Milinski, M.
Affiliations
  • Evolutionary Theory Group and
  • Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology (DE)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-12-23
Volume
111
Issue
2
Pages
752-756
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2168194430
Cited by
90
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 4
FWCI
23.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
Keywords
free-riding, public goods game, democratic institutions, majority voting, commitment, tax evasion, cooperation, migration, institutional choice
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Cooperative Behavior, Democracy, Germany, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Social Control Policies, Politics, Punishment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review