The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Cooperator's Dilemma
Abstract
In The Cooperator's Dilemma , Mark Lichbach provides an up-to-date and complete evaluation of the collective-action approach. A special strength of the work is that it integrates in a unique way both game theoretic and micro- economics approaches to the collective-action problem. Prisoner's Dilemma and public goods issues are thus discussed with a common collective-action framework. Another distinctive feature is the author's development and application of a unique typology of solutions to the collective-action solutions he labels: market, community, contract and hierarchy. In the comprehensive review of collective-action theories, two criteria are employed to evaluate them. First, the logical completeness of every collective- action solution is considered. Lichbach argues that each type of solution presupposes the existence of at least one other type of solution. Trying to solve the problems of social order and collective- action thus leads one in a vicious circle since no solution seems to guarantee collective- action. While each type of solution might be necessary to either create, maintain or transform collective action, taken independently none is sufficient. To overcome the incompleteness problem, the book suggest that we investigate combinations of solutions to the collective-action problem. Second, every solution is evaluated from the point of view of logical consistency with the core assumptions of the collective- action approach. Many recent solutions to the collective-action problem have pushed back the limits of rational- choice explanations. Analysts have tried to synthesize noneconomic variables into economic models. Collective-action arguments have been extended to explain, for example, norms, trust ideology, reputation, institutions and leadership. It has to be questioned whether these recent extensions truly represent progress. Mark Irving Lichbach is Professor of Government and Politics, University of Maryland.
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
Collective action and the evolution of social norms.
Ostrom, E. (2000) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.14.3.137 · Cited by 4,195
Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change
Ostrom, E. (2010) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004 · Cited by 2,460
Cooperative Multi-Agent Learning: The State of the Art
Panait, L., & Luke, S. (2005) · Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems · doi:10.1007/s10458-005-2631-2 · Cited by 1,237
Toward a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory
Goldstone, J. A. (2001) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.139 · Cited by 566
A Survey on Cooperative Co-Evolutionary Algorithms
Ma, X., Li, X., Zhang, Q., Tang, K., Liang, Z., Xie, W., & Zhu, Z. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/tevc.2018.2868770 · Cited by 336
Metadata
- Venue
- University of Michigan Press eBooks
- Publisher
- University of Michigan Press
- Published
- 1996
- OpenAlex
- W644901431
- Cited by
- 248
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.41
- Type
- book
- 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: The Cooperator's Dilemma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3998/mpub.13808
- The paper
- The Cooperator's Dilemma. (1996). University of Michigan Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.13808
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.