Aktipis Athena, de Aguiar Rolando, Flaherty Anna, Iyer Padmini, Sonkoi Dennis, Cronk Lee
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281 USA.
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ USA.
Hum Ecol Interdiscip J. 2016;44:353-364. doi: 10.1007/s10745-016-9823-z. Epub 2016 May 3.
Using an agent-based model to study risk-pooling in herder dyads using rules derived from Maasai ("umbilical cord") relationships, Aktipis . (2011) found that osotua transfers led to more risk-pooling and better herd survival than both no transfers and transfers that occurred at frequencies tied to those seen in the osotua simulations. Here we expand this approach by comparing osotua-style transfers to another type of livestock transfer among Maasai known as ("debt"). In osotua, one asks if in need, and one gives in response to such requests if doing so will not threaten one's own survival. In esile relationships, accounts are kept and debts must be repaid. We refer to these as "need-based" and "account-keeping" systems, respectively. Need-based transfers lead to more risk pooling and higher survival than account keeping. Need-based transfers also lead to greater wealth equality and are game theoretically dominant to account-keeping rules.
阿克蒂皮斯（2011年）使用基于主体的模型，利用从马赛人（“脐带”）关系中推导出来的规则，研究牧民二元组中的风险分担，发现奥索图阿式转移比不转移以及按照奥索图阿模拟中出现的频率进行的转移，能带来更多的风险分担和更好的畜群存活率。在这里，我们通过将奥索图阿式转移与马赛人中另一种被称为“债务”（埃西莱）的牲畜转移类型进行比较，来扩展这种方法。在奥索图阿式转移中，一方询问另一方是否有需要，另一方如果这样做不会威胁到自己的生存，就会回应这种请求并给予帮助。在埃西莱关系中，会记录账目，债务必须偿还。我们分别将这些称为“基于需求”和“记账”系统。基于需求的转移比记账能带来更多的风险分担和更高的存活率。基于需求的转移还能带来更大的财富平等，并且在博弈论上比记账规则更具优势。
