Four farmers are deciding whether to contribute to a shared irrigation project. The cost to contribute is $10 per farmer. For each farmer who contributes, all four farmers receive a benefit of $8. Suppose two farmers have already committed to contributing. A third farmer makes the following argument: "If I contribute, the total number of contributors becomes three, generating a total benefit of $24 for me. Since my cost is only $10, my net payoff will be $14. Therefore, it is in my best interest to contribute." What is the primary flaw in this farmer's reasoning?
0
1
Tags
Social Science
Empirical Science
Science
CORE Econ
Economy
Economics
Introduction to Microeconomics Course
The Economy 2.0 Microeconomics @ CORE Econ
Related
Four farmers are deciding whether to contribute to a shared irrigation project. The personal cost for any farmer who decides to contribute is $10. For every farmer who makes a contribution, all four participants—including those who did not contribute—receive a benefit of $8. Which of the following statements is true regarding this situation?
The Farmer's Dilemma
Four farmers are deciding whether to contribute to a shared irrigation project. The personal cost for any farmer who contributes is $10. For every farmer who contributes, all four participants receive a benefit of $8. Match each scenario with the correct net payoff for an individual farmer within that scenario.
Consider a scenario involving four farmers deciding whether to contribute to a shared irrigation project. The personal cost for any farmer who decides to contribute is $10. For every farmer who makes a contribution, all four participants—including those who did not contribute—receive a benefit of $8.
Statement: In a situation where exactly three farmers contribute, the one farmer who chooses not to contribute has a lower net payoff than the three farmers who do contribute.
Solving the Farmer's Dilemma
Payoff Analysis in a Contribution Game
Four farmers are deciding whether to contribute to a shared irrigation project. The cost to contribute is $10 per farmer. For each farmer who contributes, all four farmers receive a benefit of $8. Suppose two farmers have already committed to contributing. A third farmer makes the following argument: "If I contribute, the total number of contributors becomes three, generating a total benefit of $24 for me. Since my cost is only $10, my net payoff will be $14. Therefore, it is in my best interest to contribute." What is the primary flaw in this farmer's reasoning?
Evaluating a Policy Change in the Irrigation Game
Four farmers are deciding whether to contribute to a shared irrigation project. The cost to contribute is $10 for any farmer who does so. For each farmer who contributes, all four farmers (including those who do not contribute) receive a benefit of $8. The farmers meet and all verbally agree to contribute, recognizing this will create the largest total benefit for the group. From a purely self-interested perspective, what is the most significant challenge to this agreement being successful?