Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKing, Maia
dc.date.accessioned2017-12-18T14:17:01Z
dc.date.available2017-12-18T14:17:01Z
dc.date.issued2017-10-31
dc.date.submitted2017-12-18T11:40:18.495Z
dc.identifier.citationKing, M. 2017. Collective action in networks: communication, cooperation and redistribution. Queen Mary University of Londonen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/30711
dc.descriptionPhDen_US
dc.description.abstractA person's friends, neighbours and other social relationships can have a large impact on their economic outcomes. We examine three important ways that networks can affect people's lives: when networks describe who they communicate with, who they can trust, and who benefits from their public good provision. We analyse information transmission in networks in a new, intuitive way which removes the problematic redundancy of double counting the signals that travel through more than one walk between nodes. Two-connectedness and cycles of length four play an important role in whether players are `visible', which means that other players can communicate about them. Next, using this approach to network communication, we investigate cooperation and punishment in a society where information flows about cheating are determined by an arbitrary fixed network. We identify which players can trust and cooperate with each other in a repeated game where members of a community are randomly matched in pairs. Our model shows how two aspects of trust depend on players' network position: they are `trusting' if they are more likely to receive information about other players' types; and they are `trusted' if others can communicate about them, giving them strong incentives not to deviate. Lastly, in networks with private provision of public goods, we show that a `neutral' policy corresponds to a switch in the direction of the impact of income redistribution. Where redistribution is non- neutral, we can identify the welfare effects of transfers, including whether or not Pareto-improving transfers are possible. If not, we find the implicit welfare weights of the original equilibrium. In this setting, we also identify a transfer paradox, where, counter-intuitively, a transfer of wealth between economic agents can result in the giver being better off at the new Nash equilibrium, while the recipient is worse off .en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipQueen Mary, University of Londonen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherQueen Mary University of Londonen_US
dc.rightsThe copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author
dc.subjectEconomicsen_US
dc.subjectnetwork communicationen_US
dc.subjectWord-of-mouthen_US
dc.subjectRedistributionen_US
dc.titleCollective action in networks: communication, cooperation and redistributionen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Theses [4235]
    Theses Awarded by Queen Mary University of London

Show simple item record