The Prisoner's Dilemma is a phenomenon in game theory that fuels cooperation or conflict in strategic decision-making situations, particularly when individuals or states act in their own self-interest. It is often used to explain why rational actors might fail to cooperate, even when it is in their best interest to do so.
In the classic version of the dilemma, two individuals are arrested and interrogated separately. Each has two choices: cooperate with each other by staying silent, or betray the other by confessing. The dilemma arises because:
- If both stay silent (cooperate), they receive a light punishment.
- If one confesses (defects) while the other stays silent, the one who confesses goes free, while the other receives a harsh punishment.
- If both confess, they both receive moderate punishment.
The paradox lies in the fact that, although mutual cooperation yields the best outcome, each prisoner has an incentive to betray the other to avoid the worst-case scenario (being the only one who remains silent). Thus, both often end up defecting, which leads to a worse outcome for both.
In international relations and political science, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is used to explain:
- Arms races: Countries may continue to build weapons (defect) because they fear being outmatched by rivals, even though both would be better off agreeing to disarm (cooperate).
- Trade wars: Nations might impose tariffs or restrictions (defect) out of fear that the other will do the same, even when free trade (cooperation) could benefit both.
It illustrates how distrust and fear of betrayal can fuel competition or conflict, despite potential gains from cooperation.