IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gre/wpaper/2016-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Game Theory, Institutions and the Schelling-Bacharach Principle: Toward an Empirical Social Ontology

Author

Listed:
  • Cyril Hédoin

    (University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, France)

  • Lauren Larrouy

    (University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
    GREDEG CNRS)

Abstract

This article defends a methodological and theoretical claim according to which the combination of epistemic game theory with the recent developments in the so-called “theory of mind” is able to provide an empirically grounded and theoretically consistent perspective on the mechanisms through which institutions determine the individuals’ beliefs and choices. This move toward an empirical social ontology is captured through what we call the Schelling-Bacharach principle in game theory. According to it, game-theoretic analysis of coordination and cooperation should study how the players are actually reasoning in different game situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Cyril Hédoin & Lauren Larrouy, 2016. "Game Theory, Institutions and the Schelling-Bacharach Principle: Toward an Empirical Social Ontology," GREDEG Working Papers 2016-21, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    • Handle: RePEc:gre:wpaper:2016-21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://195.220.190.85/GREDEG-WP-2016-21.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bacharach, Michael, 1999. "Interactive team reasoning: A contribution to the theory of co-operation," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 117-147, June.
    2. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    3. Paul R. Milgrom & Douglass C. North & Barry R. Weingast*, 1990. "The Role Of Institutions In The Revival Of Trade: The Law Merchant, Private Judges, And The Champagne Fairs," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(1), pages 1-23, March.
    4. Hédoin, Cyril, 2012. "Linking institutions to economic performance: the role of macro-structures in micro-explanations," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 327-349, September.
    5. Schotter,Andrew, 2008. "The Economic Theory of Social Institutions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521067133, January.
    6. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521555838 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Ken Binmore, 1998. "Game Theory and the Social Contract - Vol. 2: Just Playing," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 2, number 0262024446, December.
    8. Adam Brandenburger, 2014. "The Language of Game Theory:Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 8844, December.
    9. Shaun Hargreaves Heap & David Rojo Arjona & Robert Sugden, 2012. "A Popperian test of level-k theory," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 12-06, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    10. Greif,Avner, 2006. "Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521671347, September.
    11. Bacharach, Michael & Stahl, Dale O., 2000. "Variable-Frame Level-n Theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 220-246, August.
    12. Bacharach, Michael & Bernasconi, Michele, 1997. "The Variable Frame Theory of Focal Points: An Experimental Study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 1-45, April.
    13. Andrés Perea, 2014. "From Classical To Epistemic Game Theory," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 1-22.
    14. Hindriks, Frank & Guala, Francesco, 2015. "Institutions, rules, and equilibria: a unified theory," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 459-480, September.
    15. Andrew Colman, 1997. "Salience and focusing in pure coordination games," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 61-81.
    16. Bacharach, M. & Mongin, P., 1994. "Epistemic logic and the foundations of game theory," LIDAM Reprints CORE 1105, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    17. Smit, J. P. & Buekens, Filip & du Plessis, Stan, 2011. "What Is Money? An Alternative To Searle'S Institutional Facts," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 1-22, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cyril Hédoin, 2016. "Community-Based Reasoning in Games: Salience, Rule-Following, and Counterfactuals," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.

    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. Nicolas Bardsley & Judith Mehta & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2006. "The Nature of Salience Revisited: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory versus Team Reasoning," Discussion Papers 2006-17, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    2. Richard Arena & Lauren Larrouy, 2015. "The Role of Psychology in Austrian Economics and Game Theory: Subjectivity and Coordination," GREDEG Working Papers 2015-15, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    3. Marco Faillo & Alessandra Smerilli & Robert Sugden, 2016. "Can a single theory explain coordination? An experiment on alternative modes of reasoning and the conditions under which they are used," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 16-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    4. Nicholas Bardsley & Judith Mehta & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2010. "Explaining Focal Points: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory "versus" Team Reasoning," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(543), pages 40-79, March.
    5. Bardsley, Nicholas & Ule, Aljaž, 2017. "Focal points revisited: Team reasoning, the principle of insufficient reason and cognitive hierarchy theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 74-86.
    6. Faillo, Marco & Smerilli, Alessandra & Sugden, Robert, 2017. "Bounded best-response and collective-optimality reasoning in coordination games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 317-335.
    7. Maarten C.W. Janssen, 1997. "Focal Points," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 97-091/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    8. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus & Mollerstrom, Johanna & Munkhammar, Sara, 2012. "Social framing effects: Preferences or beliefs?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 117-130.
    9. Joško Sindik & Nives Vidak, 2008. "Application of Game Theory in Describing Efficacy of Decision Making in Sportsman's Tactical Performance in Team Sports," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 6(1), pages 53-66.
    10. Roy Gardner, 2007. "Michael Bacharach, Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006. xxiii + 214 pages. USD 35.00 (cloth)," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 495-497, March.
    11. Lauren Larrouy & Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "Choosing in a Large World: The Role of Focal Points as a Mindshaping Device," Working Papers halshs-01923244, HAL.
    12. Vanderschraaf, Peter, 2021. "Contractarianisms and markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 270-287.
    13. Dirk Helbing & Anders Johansson, 2010. "Cooperation, Norms, and Revolutions: A Unified Game-Theoretical Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-15, October.
    14. Arnaud Wolff, 2019. "On the Function of Beliefs in Strategic Social Interactions," Working Papers of BETA 2019-41, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    15. Isoni, Andrea & Poulsen, Anders & Sugden, Robert & Tsutsui, Kei, 2019. "Focal points and payoff information in tacit bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 193-214.
    16. Radzvilas, Mantas & Karpus, Jurgis, 2021. "Team reasoning without a hive mind," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 345-353.
    17. María Paz Espinosa & Jaromír Kovárík & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "Strategic Interaction and Conventions," ThE Papers 10/09, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    18. María Paz Espinosa & Jaromír Kovárík & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "Strategic Interaction and Conventions," ThE Papers 10/09, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    19. Alberti, Federica & Sugden, Robert & Tsutsui, Kei, 2012. "Salience as an emergent property," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 379-394.
    20. Claudius Graebner & Amineh Ghorbani, 2019. "Defining institutions - A review and a synthesis," ICAE Working Papers 89, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social ontology; epistemic game theory; institutions; theory of Mind; Schelling-Bacharach principle;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gre:wpaper:2016-21. 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: Patrice Bougette (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/credcfr.html .

    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.