IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rsocec/v58y2000i2p153-175.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Use of the Prisoners' Dilemma to Analyze the Relations Between Employment Security, Trust, And Effort

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Smith

Abstract

Sociologists and political scientists have argued that the explanatory adequacy of economics is undermined by unreasonable assumptions of rationality. Yet interpretations that make strong rationality assumptions remain common. Analyses of the effects of employment security on work effort provide one example. The iterated prisoners' dilemma has been used to deduce a positive effect of employment security on work effort. Several difficulties with this approach are identified, including that the cooperative solution to the iterated prisoners' dilemma game i) requires infinite play or uncertainty about the end of the repetitions of the game; ii) is made less likely where there are structural bases for divergent interests; iii) ignores the possibility that employers might choose to shift the game to another arena. In general, there is the difficulty that employer-employee relations involve three simultaneous prisoners' dilemmas. The paper concludes that the hyper-rational approach implied in the prisoners' dilemma is an unpromising route for the analysis of the effects of employment security.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Smith, 2000. "On the Use of the Prisoners' Dilemma to Analyze the Relations Between Employment Security, Trust, And Effort," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 153-175.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rsocec:v:58:y:2000:i:2:p:153-175
    DOI: 10.1080/003467600402521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/003467600402521
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/003467600402521?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:rsocec:v:58:y:2000:i:2:p:153-175. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RRSE20 .

    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.