Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:43:26.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On David Gauthier’s Theories of Coordination and Cooperation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2016

ROBERT SUGDEN
ROBERT SUGDEN*
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1975, Gauthier discussed Schelling’s pure coordination games and Hodgson’s Hi-Lo game. While developing an original analysis of how rational players coordinate on ‘focal points,’ Gauthier argued, contrary to Schelling and Hodgson, that successful coordination in these games does not depend on deviations from conventional principles of individually rational choice. I argue that Gauthier’s analysis of constrained maximization in Morals by Agreement, which famously deviates from conventional game theory, has significant similarities with Schelling’s and Hodgson’s analyses of coordination. Constrained maximization can be thought of as a pragmatic and contractarian variant of the team-reasoning approach pioneered by Hodgson.

En 1975, David Gauthier a discuté la question des jeux de coordination pure de Schelling et des jeux Hi-Lo de Hodgson. Tout en proposant une analyse originale de la façon dont les joueurs rationnels se coordonnent sur des «points focaux», Gauthier a soutenu contre Schelling et Hodgson que dans ces jeux, une coordination réussie ne dépend pas de déviations par rapport aux principes conventionnels du choix rationnel individuel. J’avance que l’analyse de la maximisation contrainte proposée par Gauthier dans Morals by Agreement, qui s’éloigne de façon notoire de la théorie des jeux conventionnelle, présente d’importantes similarités avec les analyses de la coordination de Schelling et Hodgson. La maximisation contrainte peut être envisagée comme une variante pragmatique et contractualiste de l’approche du raisonnement par équipe introduite par Hodgson.

Keywords

Gauthiercoordinationcooperationsaliencefocal points
Type
Special Topic: Gauthier’s Contractarian Project
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 713 - 737
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bacharach, Michael 1987 “A Theory of Rational Decision in Games,” Erkenntnis 27, 17–55.Google Scholar
Bacharach, Michael 1993 “Variable Universe Games,” in Binmore, Ken, Kirman, Alan and Tani, Piero (eds.), Frontiers of Game Theory, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 255–276.Google Scholar
Bacharach, Michael 2006 Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bernheim, B. Douglas 1984 “Rationalizable Strategic Behavior,” Econometrica 52 (4), 1007–1028.Google Scholar
Binmore, Ken 1993 “Bargaining and Morality,” in Gauthier, David and Sugden, Robert (eds.), Rationality, Justice and the Social Contract, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 131–156.Google Scholar
Casajus, André 2001 Focal Points in Framed Games: Breaking the Symmetry, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cubitt, Robin and Sugden, Robert 2003 “Common Knowledge, Salience and Convention: A Reconstruction of David Lewis’s Game Theory,” Economics and Philosophy 19 (2), 175–210.Google Scholar
Cubitt, Robin and Sugden, Robert 2014 “Common Reasoning in Games: A Lewisian Analysis of Common Knowledge of Rationality,” Economics and Philosophy 30 (3), 285–329.Google Scholar
Gauthier, David 1975 “Coordination,” Dialogue 14 (2), 195–221.Google Scholar
Gauthier, David 1986 Morals by Agreement, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hodgson, David H. 1967 Consequences of Utilitarianism, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Janssen, Maarten 2001 “Rationalising Focal Points,” Theory and Decision 50 (2), 119–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David 1969 Convention: A Philosophical Study, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mehta, Judith, Starmer, Chris and Sugden, Robert 1994 “The Nature of Salience: An Experimental Investigation of Pure Coordination Games,” American Economic Review 84, 658–673.Google Scholar
Pearce, David 1984 “Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection,” Econometrica 52 (4), 1029–1050.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas 1960 The Strategy of Conflict, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sugden, Robert 1991 “Rational Choice: A Survey of Contributions from Economics and Philosophy,” Economic Journal 101 (407), 751–785.Google Scholar
Sugden, Robert 1993 “Thinking as a Team: Towards an Explanation of Non-selfish Behavior,” Social Philosophy & Policy 10 (1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, Robert 1995 “A Theory of Focal Points,” Economic Journal 105 (430), 533–550.Google Scholar
Sugden, Robert 2003 “The Logic of Team Reasoning,” Philosophical Explorations 6 (3), 165–181.Google Scholar
Sugden, Robert 2015 “Team Reasoning and Intentional Cooperation for Mutual Benefit,” Journal of Social Ontology 1 (1), 143–166.Google Scholar
Sugden, Robert and Zamarrón, Ignacio 2006 “Finding the Key: The Riddle of Focal Points,” Journal of Economic Psychology 27 (5), 609–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar