In this paper, we explore under which conditions coordinated punishment performs better than uncoordinated punishment in a team trust game with information asymmetries. We theoretically compare: (i) an uncoordinated punishment system where individual punishment is effective, and (ii) a coordinated punishment system where a minimum number of individuals carrying out punishment is needed for punishment to be effective. Our results reveal that only when there is a sufficiently high proportion of reciprocal investors in the population, a coordinated punishment system leads to efficient equilibria in a wider range of cases than uncoordinated punishment and it does so with higher returns and higher levels of social welfare.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alventosa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: