奥斯特罗姆贡献

(4) The prisoner‘s dilemma (Dawes, 1973, 1975; Pareto, 1935; Tucker, 1983);
(5) The free-rider problem (Hume, 1978; Pasour, 1981); (6) Externalities (spill-over effects); (7) Underprovided public goods (Samuelson, 1954,
一、埃莉诺· 奥斯特罗（Elinor Ostrom）和文森 特· 奥斯特罗姆（Vincent Ostrom）生平
埃莉诺：1933年8月7日 文森特：1919年 9月25日 The Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization published a special issue, "Polycentric Political Economy: A Festschrift for Elinor and Vincent Ostrom", as the proceedings of a 2003 conference held in their honor, at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. 个人简历（其他文件）
(seeYang and Wu, 2009a, p. 2412)
7
（二）奥斯特罗姆以前的解决方案：国家和市场理论

1. The Central Authority or Leviathan Model
(Hardin, 1978; Hobbes, 1991; Pigou, 1932; Olson 1971),
4
第二部分的主要内容 （一）关注的问题背景及其发展理路
（二） 奥斯特罗姆以前的解决方案：国家和市场 理论 （三） 奥斯特鲁姆方法: 自治或自主治理
5
（一）关注的问题背景及其发展理路

1. 集体行动及其困境（collective action dilemma or social dilemma）

Other humans – public officials rather than the public– are supposed to impose optimal policies based on models that academics devise Tend to recommend panaceas

2. The Privatization Model (Buchanan, 1965; Coase, 1960, 1974; Demsetz, 1970; Gordon, 1954; Savas, 2000; Smith, 1981),

(see, Yang and Wu, 2009a, p. 2412)
9


2. 博弈理论分析

Fig. 1. The five games in Ostrom (1990). A) Game 1— the Hardin herder game. B) Game 2—the central authority game with complete information. C) Game 3— the central authority game with incomplete information. D) Game 4—an example of the central authority game with incomplete information. E) Game 5—self-financed contract-enforcement game. While all these game are illustrated by Ostrom using extensive forms, we recast them as normal forms. （Yang and Wu, 2009, p. 2414）
“Now let's assume that the central government has complete information on the carrying capacity of the meadow (L) but incomplete information on the particular actions of the herders, that the probability of the central agency punishing defections is y, and that the probability of the central agency falsely punishing cooperative actions is x (see Fig. 1, Game 3). Several errors made by the central agency include “setting the carrying capacity or the fine too high or too low,” “sanctioning herders who cooperate,” or “not sanctioning defectors” (Ostrom, 1990, p. 10). If x=0 and y=1, Game 3 becomes Game 2. If the central agency does not have complete information about the herders' actions, say x=0.3, y=0.7, Game 3 becomes Game 4 (see Fig. 1, Game 4), which makes the herders face a prisoner's dilemma game again. Furthermore, the equilibrium outcome (−1.4, 1.4) for Game 4 is even lower than (1, 1) in Game 1. The method proposed by Ostrom (1990) is one of self-governance. Under the players' self-governance, the players can negotiate various strategies for sharing the meadowand the costs of implementing the agreement, even though a binding contract is still needed to be enforced by an external actor. When both Player 1 and Player 2 agree upon and conform to a contract, the solution to the fifth gamebecomes (10−e/2,10−e/2) (here e is the cost of implementing an agreement). Otherwise, they repeat Game 1(see Fig. 1, Game 5).” (Yang and Wu, 2009a, p. 2413)
Collective action at the core of social science and policy. 集体行动及其困境问题，其核心是冲突竞争和集体合作问题。 最经典的OLSON M．The Logic of Collective Action：Public Goods and the Theory of Groups[M]．Cambridge：Harvard University Press， 1971(1965)． No one will cooperate because they fear others will free ride! Citizens are thus presumed to be trapped in a social dilemma “In general, the collective action dilemma is a setting in which individuals, as a group, share a common output but have choices for actions based on their own expectation for maximum short-term individual benefits. Then, the rational choice of an individual is to “free-ride” if other individuals in the group can share regardless of their contribution (Olson, 1971). That is, a collective action dilemma involves conflicts between individual rationality and optimality for a group (Schelling, 1978), and its core problem is how the participants in social dilemmas can avoid the temptation of suboptimal equilibria and move closer to optimal outcomes to gain a cooperators‟ dividend (Lichbach, 1996).” (see Yang and Wu, 2009a, p. 2412)