Yang Xiaowei, Yang Shiqi, Wang Yuejin, Zhang Shuyu, Luo Songmei
Law School, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China.
School of Economics and Management, Huzhou University, Huzhou, China.
Front Psychol. 2022 Sep 20;13:998642. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998642. eCollection 2022.
The tragedy of the commons refers to the overuse of resources which are rival in consumption but lack excludability and it also refers to rent dissipation. While the tragedy of the anticommons is a tragedy closely connected with underuse of resources that are rival in consumption and with too strong excludability. The prior studies proved that the tragedy of the commons and the tragedy of the anticommons are symmetric from the perspective of pure mathematics, especially the game theory, which was later refuted by behavioral economics experiments. According to them, the tragedy of the anticommons is severer than the tragedy of the commons. The asymmetry of the tragedy of the commons and the tragedy of the anticommons is a paradox by these different research methods. This paradox shows that there are imperfections in the completely rational economic man hypothesis set up by neoclassical economics. As a fundamental theory, the tragedy of the commons is quite influential in many disciplines, such as microeconomics, public sector economics, ecological economics, environmental economics, management, sociology, property law, and political science. And the tragedy of the anticommons theory has also opened its door of both theoretical research and practical implications since its acceptance by Nobel laureate Buchanan, the main founder of public choice school. Only when theoretical issues are thoroughly discussed and made clear enough, can people avoid misunderstanding or misusing the commons theory. Thus, it is necessary to elucidate the paradox between them. Based on Simon's bounded rationality, Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory, value function, Thaler's mental accounting, endowment effect, and other cognitive psychological tools, this study clearly shows that agents' decision-making process is not just based on the long-believed marginal benefit and marginal cost analysis advocated by traditional neoclassical economists. Agents' decision-making is a process in which agents selectively absorb, code the objective marginal revenue and marginal cost, and feed relevant information to their brain. Therefore, what plays a directly decisive role is not the objective marginal revenue and marginal cost , but the mentally perceived subjective utility of marginal revenue and marginal cost by the human brain. Followed by this research clue, the paradox between the tragedy of the commons and the tragedy of the anticommons is elucidated from the perspective of cognitive psychology.
公地悲剧指的是对消费具有竞争性但缺乏排他性的资源的过度使用,它也指租金耗散。而反公地悲剧是一种与消费具有竞争性且排他性过强的资源利用不足密切相关的悲剧。先前的研究证明,从纯数学角度,尤其是博弈论来看,公地悲剧和反公地悲剧是对称的,不过后来这一观点被行为经济学实验所驳斥。据这些实验,反公地悲剧比公地悲剧更为严重。公地悲剧和反公地悲剧的不对称性是这些不同研究方法带来的一个悖论。这个悖论表明新古典经济学所设定的完全理性经济人假设有缺陷。作为一个基础理论,公地悲剧在许多学科中都颇具影响力,如微观经济学、公共部门经济学、生态经济学、环境经济学、管理学、社会学、财产法和政治学等。自公共选择学派的主要创始人、诺贝尔奖获得者布坎南认可反公地悲剧理论以来,反公地悲剧理论也开启了其理论研究和实际应用之门。只有当理论问题得到充分讨论并足够明晰时,人们才能避免对公地理论的误解或误用。因此,有必要阐明它们之间的悖论。基于西蒙的有限理性、卡尼曼和特沃斯基的前景理论、价值函数、塞勒的心理账户、禀赋效应以及其他认知心理工具,本研究清晰地表明,行为主体的决策过程并非仅仅基于传统新古典经济学家长期所信奉的边际收益和边际成本分析。行为主体的决策是一个行为主体有选择地吸收、编码客观边际收益和边际成本,并将相关信息输入大脑的过程。所以,起直接决定性作用的并非客观边际收益和边际成本,而是人类大脑在心理上感知到的边际收益和边际成本的主观效用。循着这一研究线索,从认知心理学角度阐明了公地悲剧和反公地悲剧之间的悖论。