The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Chickens, Whales, and Lumpy Goods: Alternative Models of Public-Goods Provision
Abstract
The game-theoretic literature on the problem of the provision of public goods has concentrated almost exclusively on one model—the Prisoner's Dilemma game. Several other simple games may be more applicable in certain situations. In particular, the game structure known as Chicken seems to provide a better description of an important sub-class of games where the good is lumpy rather than continuously divisible. Many environmental public goods belong to this category. A distinct paradox of public-goods provision occurs within games of Chicken.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
2. Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research
Ledyard, J. O. (1995) · The Handbook of Experimental Economics · doi:10.1515/9780691213255-004 · Cited by 1,033
Provision of step-level public goods: Effects of greed and fear of being gypped
Rapoport, A., & Eshed-Levy, D. (1989) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90012-5 · Cited by 174
Metadata
- Authors
- Taylor, M., & Ward, H.
- Venue
- Political Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1982-09
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 350-370
- ISSN
- 0032-3217 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9248
- OpenAlex
- W2103209681
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Chickens, Whales, and Lumpy Goods: Alternative Models of Public-Goods Provision. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1982.tb00545.x
- The paper
- Taylor, M., & Ward, H. (1982). Chickens, Whales, and Lumpy Goods: Alternative Models of Public-Goods Provision. Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1982.tb00545.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
