David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Economics and Philosophy 22 (2):243-279 (2006)
I propose a dynamical analysis of interaction in anarchy, and argue that this kind of dynamical analysis is a more promising route to predicting the outcome of anarchy than the more traditional a priori analyses of anarchy in the literature. I criticize previous a priori analyses of anarchy on the grounds that these analyses assume that the individuals in anarchy share a unique set of preferences over the possible outcomes of war, peace, exploiting others and suffering exploitation. Following Hobbes' classic analysis of anarchy, I maintain that typically in anarchy some moderate individuals will most desire mutual cooperation while other dominators will most desire to exploit others' cooperation. I argue that once one allows for different types of individuals in anarchy, any a priori analysis of anarchy requires unrealistic assumptions regarding the agents' common knowledge of their situation. However, this move also suggests a dynamical analysis of anarchy, one that assumes no common knowledge. In the Variable Anticipation threshold model developed here, individuals modify their behavior as they learn from repeated interactions. I present specific instances of this model where the individuals in anarchy converge to different equilibria corresponding to either peace or war, depending on the initial conditions. I show that individuals are liable to converge to Hobbes' war of all against all even if only a small percentage of are dominators. The presence of only a few “nasty” individuals gradually drives all, including those inclined to be “nicer”, to imitate the “nasty” conduct of these few. This dynamic analysis suggests that the Hobbesian war in anarchy is indeed inevitable in most realistic circumstances. You have the same propension, that I have, in favor of what is contiguous above what is remote. You are, therefore, naturally carry'd to commit acts of injustice as well as I. Your example both pushes me forward in this way by imitation, and also affords me a new reason for any breach of equity, by showing me, that I shou'd be the cully of my integrity, if I alone shou'd impose on myself a severe restraint amidst the licentiousness of others. (David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature) (Published Online July 11 2006) Footnotes1 Thanks to Luc Bovens, Sharon Lloyd, Brian Skyrms, Susanne Sreedhar and an anonymous referee for many helpful comments of early versions of this essay.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ellen O.’Gorman (2002). Tacitus on Civil War R. Ash: Ordering Anarchy. Armies and Leaders in Tacitus' Histories. Pp. IX + 246. London: Duckworth, 1999. Cased, £40. Isbn: 0-7156-2800-. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 52 (01):75-.
Andreas Herberg-Rothe (2006). Privatized Wars and World Order Conflicts. Theoria 53 (110):1-22.
Joel Spencer, An Anarchy of Man : Cartesian and Post-Cartesian Representations of the Self in Selected Western Literature.
Daniel P. Jaeckle (2009). Embodied Anarchy in Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed. Utopian Studies 20 (1):75 - 95.
George Lucas (2007). 'Methodological Anarchy': Arguing About War - and Getting It Right. Brian Orend, The Morality of War. Journal of Military Ethics 6 (3):246-252.
Miguel Abensour (2002). Savage Democracy and Principle of Anarchy. Philosophy and Social Criticism 28 (6):703-726.
Peter Vanderschraaf (2008). Game Theory Meets Threshold Analysis: Reappraising the Paradoxes of Anarchy and Revolution. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):579-617.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #55,322 of 1,004,649 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,617 of 1,004,649 )
How can I increase my downloads?