Four Limitations of Game Theory when dealing with Temporal Explanations (from Politics in Time by Paul Pierson pgs 60-61)
"1. Game theory itself can say nothing about payoffs and preferences. As Scharpf notes, 'Game theory as such can provide no help in identifying outcome and their valuation by the 'players'; the empirical and theoretical work necessary to describe thenm must have been done by the researcher before it makes sense to draw up game matrices.' Addressing these issues, of course, is a central concern of most comparative historical analyses.
"2. Game theory needs to focus on relatively cohesive, well-integrated 'composite actors.' Because game theory centers on strategic interaction, it s great trouble incorporating what Scharpf calls 'quasi groups' that cannot be treated as acting strategically but whose "utility functions are interdependent in such a way that certain acts by some will increase or decrease the likelihood that others will act in the same way.' Such quasi groups - which would typically include voters, farmers, demonstrators, workers, etc. - are evidently of substantial importance for he investigation of many of the temporal sequences discussed in this book/
"3. Games need be keep very simple: few actors, few options. As Scharpf puts it, "Even under the best of circumstances, the cognitive complexity of identifying the Nash equilibria will rapidly increase to completely unmanageable dimensions as the number of independent players involved and the number of their permissible strategies increase beyond a very few.'
"4. Sequences cannot be interrupted. Sequence, in these models, refers to an ordered alternation of 'moves' by 'composite actors,' with preferences and payoffs fixed in advance. Needless to say, this constitutes a highly circumscribed depiction of historical processes. To maintain a sufficiently controlled sequence, time must be 'squeezed,' either by examining a relatively brief temporal span or by radically simplifying the time period covered by the study"
* There is a 'fifth' critique that Pierson also brings up afterwards. 5. "in most cases arguments about temporal sequences cannot be reduced toa sequence of 'moves.' Reducing sequences to the order in which rational actors make moves misses what those interested in historical dynamics identify as most significant about the temporal order of events or processes- which is precisely that sequence is given by the way in which important social interactions unfold in time, rather than being something that someone selects." (Pierson, pgs 61-62)
"2. Game theory needs to focus on relatively cohesive, well-integrated 'composite actors.' Because game theory centers on strategic interaction, it s great trouble incorporating what Scharpf calls 'quasi groups' that cannot be treated as acting strategically but whose "utility functions are interdependent in such a way that certain acts by some will increase or decrease the likelihood that others will act in the same way.' Such quasi groups - which would typically include voters, farmers, demonstrators, workers, etc. - are evidently of substantial importance for he investigation of many of the temporal sequences discussed in this book/
"3. Games need be keep very simple: few actors, few options. As Scharpf puts it, "Even under the best of circumstances, the cognitive complexity of identifying the Nash equilibria will rapidly increase to completely unmanageable dimensions as the number of independent players involved and the number of their permissible strategies increase beyond a very few.'
"4. Sequences cannot be interrupted. Sequence, in these models, refers to an ordered alternation of 'moves' by 'composite actors,' with preferences and payoffs fixed in advance. Needless to say, this constitutes a highly circumscribed depiction of historical processes. To maintain a sufficiently controlled sequence, time must be 'squeezed,' either by examining a relatively brief temporal span or by radically simplifying the time period covered by the study"
* There is a 'fifth' critique that Pierson also brings up afterwards. 5. "in most cases arguments about temporal sequences cannot be reduced toa sequence of 'moves.' Reducing sequences to the order in which rational actors make moves misses what those interested in historical dynamics identify as most significant about the temporal order of events or processes- which is precisely that sequence is given by the way in which important social interactions unfold in time, rather than being something that someone selects." (Pierson, pgs 61-62)
No comments:
Post a Comment