Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:32:11.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY-BASED SALIENCE: COMMON KNOWLEDGE, COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND COMMUNITY MEMBERSHIP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2014

Cyril Hédoin
Cyril Hédoin*
Affiliation:
University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Francecyril.hedoin@univ-reims.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a community-based account of salience as an alternative and a complement to the ‘natural salience’ approach which is endorsed by almost all game theorists who use this concept. While in the naturalistic approach, salience is understood as an objective and natural property of some entities (events, strategies, outcomes), the community-based account claims that salience is a function of community membership. Building on David Lewis’s theory of common knowledge and on some of its recent refined accounts, I suggest that salience acts as a correlating device in a correlated equilibrium. What is constitutive of salience is common understanding, the fact that agents have common knowledge that they share the same modes of reasoning with respect to a well-identified set of events. I argue that the basis for common understanding is community membership. The relevance of this account stems from the fact that it answers the objection that salience is either unnecessary or unable to account for coordination between rational agents.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , November 2014 , pp. 365 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alberti, F., Sugden, R. and Tsutsui, K.. 2012. Salience as an emergent property. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 82: 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, J. M. 2007. The Structural Evolution of Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. J. 1976. Agreeing to disagree. Annals of Statistics 4: 1236–1239.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. J. 1987. Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality. Econometrica 55: 1–18.Google Scholar
Bacharach, M. 2006. Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bardsley, N., Mehta, J., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R.. 2010. Explaining focal points: cognitive hierarchy theory versus team reasoning. Economic Journal 120: 40–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K. 2008. Do conventions need to be common knowledge? Topoi 27: 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K. and Samuelson, L.. 2006. The evolution of focal points. Games and Economic Behavior 55: 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chwe, M. S.-Y. 2001. Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. and Marshall, C.. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Elements of Discourse Understanding, ed. Joshi, A., Webber, B. and Sag, I., 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cubitt, R. P. and Sugden, R.. 2003. Common knowledge, salience and convention: a reconstruction of David Lewis’s game theory. Economics and Philosophy 19: 175–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. 1989. Rationality and salience. Philosophical Studies 57: 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. 1990. Rationality, coordination, and convention. Synthese 84: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. 1992. On Social Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gintis, H. 2009. The Bounds Of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüne-Yanoff, T. 2011. Evolutionary game theory, interpersonal comparisons and natural selection: a dilemma. Biology and Philosophy 26: 637–654.Google Scholar
Hansen, P. and Rojo Arjona, D.. 2011. Prune or cut down: salience and Sugden's “The Economics of Rights, Cooperation and Welfare”. International Review of Economics 58: 53–78.Google Scholar
Hargreaves-Heap, S. and Varoufakis, Y.. 2004. Game Theory: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. and Selten, R.. 1988. A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hédoin, C. 2013. Collective rationality in economics: making Searle's theory of institutional facts relevant for game theory, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 6: 1–27.Google Scholar
Hollis, M. and Sugden, R.. 1993. Rationality in action. Mind 102: 1–35.Google Scholar
Levine, D. 2011. Neuroeconomics. International Review of Economics 58: 287–305.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. 1969 [2002]. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Mehta, J., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R.. 1994. The nature of salience: an experimental investigation of pure coordination games. American Economic Review 84: 658–673.Google Scholar
Morris, S. 1995. The common prior assumption in economic theory. Economics and Philosophy 11: 227–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paternotte, C. 2011. Being realistic about common knowledge: a Lewisian approach. Synthese 18: 249–276.Google Scholar
Postema, G. J. 2008. Salience reasoning. Topoi 27: 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, M. 2011. Convention. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/convention/.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. 1954. The Foundation of Statistics. Mineola, NY: Courier Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillari, G. 2005. A logical framework for convention. Synthese 147: 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillari, G. 2008. Common knowledge and convention. Topoi 27: 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1996. Evolution of the Social Contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. 2004. The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, D. O. and Wilson, P. W.. 1995. On players′ models of other players: theory and experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior 10: 218–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. 1991. Rational choice: a survey of contributions from economics and philosophy. Economic Journal 101: 751–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. 1995. A theory of focal points. Economic Journal, 105: 533–550.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 2002. The evolutionary turn in game theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 8: 113–130.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 2004. The Economics of Rights, Cooperation and Welfare, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 2011. Salience, inductive reasoning and the emergence of conventions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 79: 35–47.Google Scholar
Vanderschraaf, P. 1998. Knowledge, equilibrium and convention. Erkenntnis 49: 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderschraaf, P. and Sillari, G.. 2009. Common knowledge. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/common-knowledge/.Google Scholar
Young, H. P. 1998. Individual Strategy and Social Structure: An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar