Deficit reduction as a prisoner's dilemma game Suppose there is a budget deficit. It can be reduced by cutting military spending, by cutting welfare programs, or by cutting both. The Democrats have to decide whether to support cuts in welfare programs. The Republicans have to decide whether to support cuts in military spending. The possible outcomes are represented in the following table:
|
|
Welfare Cuts
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Defense Cuts
|
Yes
|
(R = 1, D = -2)
|
(R = -2, D = 3)
|
|
No
|
(R = 3, D = -2)
|
(R = -1, D = -1)
|
The table presents payoffs to each party under the various out- comes. ink of a payoff as a measure of happiness for a given party under a given outcome. If Democrats vote for welfare cuts, and Republicans vote against cuts in military spend- ing, the Republicans receive a payoff of 3, and the Democrats receive a payoff of - 2.
1. If the Republic decide to cut military spending, what is the best response of the Democrats? Given this response, what is the payoff for the Republicans?
2. If the Republicans decide not to cut military spending, what is the best response of the Democrats? Given this response, what is the payoff for the Republicans?
3. What will the Republicans do? What will the Democrats do? Will the budget de cit be reduced? Why or why not? (A game with a payoff structure like the one in this problem, and that produces the outcome you have just de- scribed, is known as a prisoner's dilemma.) Is there a way to improve the outcome?