IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v35y2008i5p794-809.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Regimes of Policies: Lessons from the Two-Person Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Game

Author

Listed:
  • Ching-Pin Chiu

    (Graduate Institute of Urban Planning, National Taipei University, 67, Section 3, Min Sheng East Road, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)

  • Shih-Kung Lai

    (Department of Urban Planning, National Cheng Kung University, 1 University Road, Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of China)

Abstract

On the basis of the presumption that the effects of plans for urban development are influenced highly by the decision mechanisms under which plans function, we compare deductively four interactive strategies derived from three regimes of policies, namely, fixed, emergent, and no policies, based on the two-person iterated prisoner's dilemma game. The four strategies under consideration are tit for tat (TFT), always defect (AD), always cooperate (AC), and random actions (RA). The results show that TFT is the best strategy followed by RA, AC, and AD. The implications are that policies that take into account contingencies yield higher expected payoffs than those that do not, and that emergent policies are more effective than either fixed or no policies. The model provides an analytical approach to the issue of evaluating the potential effects of the plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Ching-Pin Chiu & Shih-Kung Lai, 2008. "A Comparison of Regimes of Policies: Lessons from the Two-Person Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Game," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 35(5), pages 794-809, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:35:y:2008:i:5:p:794-809
    DOI: 10.1068/b33148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b33148
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b33148?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Seale, Darryl A. & Arend, Richard J. & Phelan, Steven, 2006. "Modeling alliance activity: Opportunity cost effects and manipulations in an iterated prisoner's dilemma with exit option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 60-75, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Feng, Sinan & Liu, Xuesong & Dong, Yida, 2022. "Limited punishment pool may promote cooperation in the public goods game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 165(P2).
    2. Rebekka Kesberg & Stefan Pfattheicher, 2019. "Democracy matters: a psychological perspective on the beneficial impact of democratic punishment systems in social dilemmas," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Buckley, Peter J. & Cross, Adam & De Mattos, Claudio, 2015. "The principle of congruity in the analysis of international business cooperation," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1048-1060.
    4. Uzea, F. Nicoleta & Fulton, Murray E., 2014. "Mechanisms for Effective Alliance Management: Insights from a Federated Cooperative Marketing System," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-32, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:35:y:2008:i:5:p:794-809. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.