Introduction to Collective Action Problems: Games for Remote Teaching

by Peter Levine, Tisch College, Tufts University, Sept. 20, 2020

CC BY NC SA 4.0 license – Allows redistribution, revisions and additions but forbids commercial use.

For instructors ...

1. Show students each sheet in turn.

2. Read or briefly explain the scenario at the top. Do not answer questions about what the students' objectives should be or what defines winning.

3. Field a survey with the choices that are presented in each scenario. (E.g., The response options for the first scenario--the college pandemic--will be 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4.)

4. Enter the data from the survey in the grey cells of the sheet (e.g., cells B14-B18 in the college pandemic scenario). The other cells are all locked.

(In the second climate game, students should talk in breakout groups before they take the survey individually. In the fishing game, there are three rounds.)

5. Discuss the results shown in the rest of each table once the data are entered.

Some possible questions for discussion after:

A game has parameters--for example, the number of players, the choices they can make, and whether players can talk. What other parameters can you think of that go into a game? How do you know whether the parameters are right for the situation?

What assumptions do we make by using a game to model/represent/explain the real world?

What kinds of situations--if any--can game theory help to explain? (You might think of other examples or general categories of situations that games seem useful for.)

What kinds of questions can game theory probably not answer?

When introducing his idea of the “Tragedy of the Commons,” Garrett Hardin talks about the “solemnity of the relentless working of things,” “the inevitableness of destiny,” and “the futility of escape.” Did we see evidence today that disaster is inevitable when people try to coordinate their behavior? If not, is there anything valuable in Hardin’s idea?