Skip to main content

Abstract

Some cooperative survival situations require all members of a group to participate equally in collective action; however, if the only sanction for non-participatory free-riding is exclusion, then it can be ineffective, as exclusion is indistinguishable from non-participation. The question then is: how does a group, that can define a set of mutually agreed conventional rules, incentivise participation that supports collective survival when the only sanctioning instrument is exclusion. This problem is investigated in this paper through the design and implementation of a self-organising multi-agent simulator for an iterated cooperative survival game. A series of experiments, or ‘survival trials’, is run for three different sanctioning schemes: fixed-length, dynamic-length and graduated-length exclusion. Results show that graduated sanctions outperform the alternatives, which can be either too weak or too strong. We conclude by arguing that these results provide evidence for why graduated sanctions are the basis for one of the principles of self-governing institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 10(1) (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1459010.1459011

  2. Balke, T., De Vos, M., Padget, J.: I-abm: combining institutional frameworks and agent-based modelling for the design of enforcement policies. Artif. Intell. Law 21(4), 371–398 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-013-9143-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brennan, G., Pettit, P.: The Economy of Esteem: An Essay on Civil and Political Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004). https://doi.org/10.1093/0199246483.001.0001

  4. Cialdini, R.: Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. William Morrow e Company, New York, NY (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Condorcet, N.d.: Essay sur l’Application de l’Analyse á la Probabilité des Décisions Rendue à la Pluralité des Voix. Paris (1785)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davoust, A., Rovatsos, M.: Social contracts for non-cooperative games. In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 43–49. AIES ’20, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375829

  7. Fehr, E., Rockenbach, B.: Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism. Nature 422(6928), 137–140 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gigerenzer, G.: How to make cognitive illusions disappear: beyond “heuristics and biases". Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2(1), 83–115 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779143000033

  9. Hardin, G.: The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859), 1243–1248 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243’www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243’

  10. Hare, R.: Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford University Press, UK (1981). https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Moral_Thinking.html?id=SverDwAAQBAJ &redir_esc=y

  11. Hegel, G.W.F.: Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1807)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hemming, R., Kay, J.A.: The laffer curve. Fiscal Studies 1(2), 83–90 (1980). www.jstor.org/stable/24434417

  13. Kurka, D.B., Pitt, J.: Disobedience as a mechanism of change. In: 12th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems. IEEE (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  14. List, C.: Social Choice Theory. In: Zalta, E.N., Nodelman, U. (eds.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Winter 2022 edn. (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mill, J.: Utilitarianism. The works of John Stuart Mill, Parker, Son and Bourn (1863). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lyUCAAAAQAAJ

  16. Mongin, P.: Expected utility theory. Handbook of Economic Methodology, pp. 342–350 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nardin, L.G., Balke-Visser, T., Ajmeri, N., Kalia, A.K., Sichman, J.S., Singh, M.P.: Classifying sanctions and designing a conceptual sanctioning process model for socio-technical systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 31(2), 142–166 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888916000023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ober, J.: Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning In Classical Athens. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ostrom, E.: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Canto Classics. Cambridge University Press (2015). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hHGgCgAAQBAJ

  20. Ostrom, E.: Common-pool resources and institutions: toward a revised theory. Handb. Agric. Econ. 2, 1315–1339 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ostrom, E.: The challenge of common-pool resources. Environ.: Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 50(4), 8–21 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Perreau de Pinninck, A., Sierra, C., Schorlemmer, M.: Distributed norm enforcement: Ostracism in open multi-agent systems. In: Casanovas, P., Sartor, G., Casellas, N., Rubino, R. (eds.) Computable Models of the Law, pp. 275–290. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_18

  23. Pitt, J.: Self-Organising Multi-Agent Systems. World Scientific, London, UK (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Scott, M., Dubied, M., Pitt, J.: Social motives and social contracts in cooperative survival games. In: Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, Norms, and Ethics for Governance of Multi-Agent Systems XV: International Workshop, COINE 2022, Virtual Event, May 9, 2022, Revised Selected Papers, pp. 148–166. Springer (2022)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are particularly grateful to the members of the SOMAS team at Imperial College London, specifically, Neel Dugar and Rasvan Rusu for developing a robust infrastructure, as well as Sacha Hakim and Michal Makowka for their contribution to the agent specification.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Buster Blackledge .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Blackledge, B. et al. (2023). Incentivising Participation with Exclusionary Sanctions (Full). In: Fornara, N., Cheriyan, J., Mertzani, A. (eds) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, Norms, and Ethics for Governance of Multi-Agent Systems XVI. COINE 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 14002. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49133-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49133-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-49132-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-49133-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics