IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/glodps/1405.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stoicism and the Tragedy of the Commons

Author

Listed:
  • Ponthiere, Gregory

Abstract

This paper revisits the Tragedy of the Commons - a Pareto-dominated overuse of a common resource - through the lenses of Stoicism, and, in particular, of the Stoic discipline of desires, according to which one should wish for nothing that is not under one's control. When the Stoic discipline of desires is modelled as a requirement of indifference between outcomes differing only on things out of control, Stoic agents are shown not to overuse the common resource. Alternatively, when the Stoic discipline of desires requires indifference between best outcomes under each circum- stance, the Nash equilibrium, if it exists, cannot be Pareto-dominated. Depending on how the Stoic discipline of desires is formalized, a recen- tering of agents towards things under their control either allows them to avoid overusing the commons, or makes the use of commons not "tragic".

Suggested Citation

  • Ponthiere, Gregory, 2024. "Stoicism and the Tragedy of the Commons," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1405, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:glodps:1405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/284851/1/GLO-DP-1405.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claudia Keser & Roy Gardner, 1999. "Strategic behavior of experienced subjects in a common pool resource game," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(2), pages 241-252.
    2. Bezin, Emeline & Ponthière, Gregory, 2019. "The tragedy of the commons and socialization: Theory and policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. Joëlle Noailly & Jeroen Bergh & Cees Withagen, 2009. "Local and Global Interactions in an Evolutionary Resource Game," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 33(2), pages 155-173, March.
    4. Philip A. Curry & John E. Roemer, 2012. "Evolutionary Stability of Kantian Optimization," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 200(1), pages 131-146, March.
    5. Apesteguia, Jose, 2006. "Does information matter in the commons?: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-69, May.
    6. Joëlle Noailly & Cees Withagen & Jeroen Bergh, 2007. "Spatial Evolution of Social Norms in a Common-Pool Resource Game," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(1), pages 113-141, January.
    7. Roemer, John E., 2015. "Kantian optimization: A microfoundation for cooperation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 45-57.
    8. Walker, James M & Gardner, Roy, 1992. "Probabilistic Destruction of Common-Pool Resources: Experimental Evidence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(414), pages 1149-1161, September.
    9. Sethi, Rajiv & Somanathan, E, 1996. "The Evolution of Social Norms in Common Property Resource Use," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 766-788, September.
    10. Grafton, R. Quentin & Kompas, Tom & Long, Ngo Van, 2017. "A brave new world? Kantian–Nashian interaction and the dynamics of global climate change mitigation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 31-42.
    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. Bezin, Emeline & Ponthière, Gregory, 2019. "The tragedy of the commons and socialization: Theory and policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    2. Jean-Philippe Atzenhoffer, 2012. "Could free-riders promote cooperation in the commons?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(1), pages 85-101, January.
    3. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. & Gowdy, John M., 2009. "A group selection perspective on economic behavior, institutions and organizations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Atakan Dizarlar & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2023. "Kantian equilibria of a class of Nash bargaining games," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(4), pages 867-891, August.
    5. Raja R Timilsina & Yutaka Kobayashi & Koji Kotani, 2022. "Non-kinship successors for resource sustainability," Working Papers SDES-2022-2, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jan 2022.
    6. Hota, Ashish R. & Garg, Siddharth & Sundaram, Shreyas, 2016. "Fragility of the commons under prospect-theoretic risk attitudes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 135-164.
    7. Petrohilos-Andrianos, Yannis & Xepapadeas, Anastasios, 2017. "Resource harvesting regulation and enforcement: An evolutionary approach," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 236-253.
    8. Emilie Lindkvist & Xavier Basurto & Maja Schlüter, 2017. "Micro-level explanations for emergent patterns of self-governance arrangements in small-scale fisheries—A modeling approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, April.
    9. Jean-Philippe Atzenhoffer, 2010. "A Note on Imitation-Based Competition in Common-Pool Resources," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 299-304, October.
    10. Frank P. Maier-Rigaud & Jose Apesteguia, 2004. "The Role of Rivalry. Public Goods versus Common-Pool Resources," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2004_2, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    11. Jose Apesteguia & Frank P. Maier-Rigaud, 2006. "The Role of Rivalry," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 646-663, October.
    12. Adler Mandelbaum, Sara E, 2014. "Effects of Threshold Uncertainty on Common-Pool Resources," MPRA Paper 59120, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2024. "How Important Are IEAs for Mitigation If Countries Are of the Homo Moralis Type?," CESifo Working Paper Series 11040, CESifo.
    14. Michèle Breton & Lucia Sbragia & Georges Zaccour, 2010. "A Dynamic Model for International Environmental Agreements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 25-48, January.
    15. Richter, Andries & Grasman, Johan, 2013. "The transmission of sustainable harvesting norms when agents are conditionally cooperative," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 202-209.
    16. Schauf, Andrew & Oh, Poong, 2021. "Myopic reallocation of extraction improves collective outcomes in networked common-pool resource games," SocArXiv w2cxp, Center for Open Science.
    17. Christos Pelekis & Panagiotis Promponas & Juan Alvarado & Eirini Eleni Tsiropoulou & Symeon Papavassiliou, 2021. "A fragile multi-CPR game," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 94(3), pages 461-492, December.
    18. Alberto Grillo, 2020. "Ethical Voting in Heterogenous Groups," AMSE Working Papers 2034, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France, revised Apr 2021.
    19. Tavoni, Alessandro & Schluter, Maja & Levin, Simon, 2010. "The Survival of the Conformist: Social Pressure and Renewable Resource Management," Sustainable Development Papers 96843, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    20. Cárdenas, Juan-Camilo & Gómez, Santiago & Mantilla, César, 2019. "Between-group competition enhances cooperation in resource appropriation games," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 17-26.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Tragedy of the Commons; Stoicism; rationality; common resource game; land overuse;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • Z1 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics

    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:zbw:glodps:1405. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/glabode.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.