A and B are engaged in a venture--which could be a non-profit one as opposed to a business--in which there is free exit and benefits to be gained from mutual cooperation. Although the relationship is long-term, so uncooperative behavior can be punished, such lack of cooperation is imperfectly observable. Given this background, there is a PD-based case for managerial hierarchy rather than equality between A and B, with one party having the right to monitor the other's behavior for lack of cooperation and to remove the other from the venture, with these rights being backed up by the coercive power of the state.
This culturally-oriented case for internal hierarchy parallels the case for external hierarchy in the standard exchange-oriented PD. The political valences are reversed, though. In the standard PD, it is liberals who are more receptive to the case for government intervention to respond to the PD and conservatives who are more skeptical about the broad application of the model. In the flipped cultural PD just given, it's reasonable to posit that conservatives would be more receptive to the model's case for hierarchy and that iberals would be more skeptical of the model. Assuming that's the case, we have some support for the proposition that liberals and conservatives shift their positions on compulsion to support cooperation, with liberals being more receptive to it in economics and conservatives being more receptive to it in culture. That leaves open the question of whether a principled position for liberalism and/or conservatism can be identified under which the different stances on the two PDs make sense given those principles.
Comments