Øivind "Evan" Schøyen

Current working papers:

A Theory of Moral Authority: Moral Choices Under Moral Network Externality 

Theory

with Avner Greif, Stanford University

Abstract:   What determines which behavior is considered morally ideal? We present a rational actor model where people's choices determine the contents of moral ideals. The model shows that if choices reflect a trade-off between cost and the feeling of guilt, social learning cannot sustain moral ideals that are privately costly. Persons with the ability to affect what others consider moral - moral authorities - are needed for moral ideals to sustain privately costly behavior. We apply the model to analyze what limits the influence of moral authorities' and what determines the enforcement costs of laws. 

Link to slides and video of  the presentation at The Cultural Evolution Conference in Sapporo 2021 HERE. Slides available upon request.

Link to current version of paper here.

Geostrategic competition and the balance between state and society: theory and historical evidence from the rivalry between Aragon and Genoa, 1358-1497 

Economic history and applied theory 

with Jean-Pascal Bassino, ENS Lyon 

 Abstract: Heightened geostrategic competition enhances the strategic value to central powers of controlling peripheral territories. How does increased strategic value affect the balance between state and society? We consider the historical case of the relationship of the Mediterranean islands of Corsica and Sardinia to Genoa and Aragon in the late medieval period. Strategic competition between Genoa and Aragon had opposing effects on the two islands; strengthening society on Corsica while strengthening the feudal state on Sardinia. We develop a novel four-player game between two competing regional powers, the local elite, and the local society. We show how an increased strategic value of controlling a territory can both strengthen or weaken its society depending on society's ability to insurrect. 

Old working paper at SSRN; major revision ready April 2024, Long abstract here.  Slides available upon request. 

The market share game

Theory paper,

 with Sjur Kristoffer Dyrkolbotn, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, and  Hannu Vartiainen, University of Helsinki

Suppose a producer's ability to sell in one market is limited by its market share in another. The decision of how much to supply to one market becomes contingent on other producers' decisions. We present a novel game analyzing this situation, the market share game. We show that for the general case of N players strong Nash equilibrium implies every producer providing the same share of his production capacity to each market. Applying two concepts of equilibrium selection we show that uncertainty about other players' actions will push toward equilibrium with more supply in the homeland market while coordination among producers will push toward equilibrium with less supply in the homeland market. We discuss applications of the game as a tool for market regulation. 

Slides and workingpaper available upon request. 

Working papers forthcoming autumn 2024: 

Measuring the efficacy of coercion: An Empirical Test  

Empirical paper with Espen Sirnes, UIT, and Chris Andresen UIT

Theoretical work has shown that if people resent the use of coercion, the efficacy of coercion might vary with level.   We study the empirical distribution and dynamics of states' use of macro-level coercion using Freedom House openness of society rankings as a proxy of coercion used. Applying three types of distributional tests, considering the risk of regime change and dynamic out of and into categories we find that distributional tests reject a uniform or unimodal distribution of coercion use. Further, we show that regime survival is non-linearly related to coercion level. Our data is inconclusive as to whether regimes move faster out of the low survival interval of coercion, which we show to be an inherent feature of categorical data. Taken as a whole our data is compatible with regimes rationally avoiding a mid-interval of coercion with negative efficacy, or irrationally implementing these levels and consequently collapsing. We discuss the implications of our findings. Our data is compatible with a non-linear coercion resentment response that creates an interval of coercion used.

Accumulation, deterrence, and group identity: A rationalist explanation for war  

Solo theory paper.

Published work:  

Suspicious Minds and Views of Fairness [Experiment & Theory paper] Theory and Decision

Citation: 

Schøyen, Øivind. "Suspicious minds and views of fairness." Theory and Decision (2024): 1-22. 

 Poster presentation here.

Abstract: Do people with different views of what is fair attribute different intentions to actions?  In a novel experimental design, I find that participants are significantly more likely to attribute a no redistribution vote to selfishness if they consider redistribution fair. I define this, attributing actions that do not adhere to one's own fairness view to selfishness, as suspicious attribution. I develop a theory of intention attribution to show how suspicious attribution arises from two other findings from the experiment: the participants underestimate the number of people who have a fairness view differing from their own, and, overestimate the selfishness of participants with other fairness views.

What limits the efficacy of coercion?   [Theory paper] (Available as open access:  Cliometrica) 

Citation: 

Øivind, Schøyen. "What limits the efficacy of coercion?." Cliometrica 15.2 (2021): 267-318. Doi . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-020-00207-0 

Working paper version: NHH Discussion paper "What limits the powerful?" available at SSRN.

Abstract: We model a game between an authority, seeking to implement its state identity, and a parental generation, seeking to socialise a younger generation into their own identity. The authority first selects a coercion level against the non-state identity. The parental generation then chooses whether to insurrect in response to the coercion level and, if not, decides how much to invest in socialising their children into the non-state identity. In this overlapping generations model, we formalise and explore the consequences of an intrinsic negative reaction to coercion: coercion resentment. We show how coercion resentment can create an interval where coercion has negative efficacy in imposing the state identity. This causes the rational legitimacy maximising authority to restrain its use of coercion. We then show how this inefficacy of coercion can make certain levels of coercion unimplementable without causing the non-state identity to insurrect. This causes the long-run equilibrium size of the non-state identity group to be dependent on their initial size and, thus, path dependence. We consider the validity of the model by reviewing two historical episodes: Stalin’s secularisation project (1922 –1953) and the Counter-Reformation in early modern France and the Holy Roman Empire (1517 –1685). 

Political Coercion in Cliometrics  Handbookchapter in the "Handbook of Cliometrics"  

Schøyen, Ø. (2024). Political Coercion and Cliometrics. In: Diebolt, C., Haupert, M. (eds) Handbook of Cliometrics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40458-0_82-1 

 Abstract: States can use various negative incentive schemes against non-state morality groups. When the strength of this pressure is sufficiently strong to be labeled malignant, these measures fall within the definition of political coercion surveyed in this chapter. The survey focuses on a selection of rational actor theories explaining the macro-level political coercion published in the last 20 years. We also refer to literature in adjacent fields aimed at creating an understanding of political coercion. Some of the theories explain outcomes that relate to the absence of political coercion, that is democracy, state-society balance, and liberty. 

Rejecting Non-Paternalist Motivation: An Experimental Test with Xianwen Chen [Experiment paper] ( Journal of Experimental Political Science)

Citation: 

Chen, X., & Schøyen, Ø. (2021). Rejecting Non-Paternalist Motivation: An Experimental Test. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1-7. doi:10.1017/XPS.2021.12 

JEPS Blog coverage: "What motivates people to impose their view upon others?"  [LINK]

Replication data available online at Havard Dataverse from this [LINK]. 

Suplementary material including simple decision problem: [LINK]

   Working paper available at SSRN.  

Abstract: Is people’s willingness to implement their fairness views on a group dependent on how many in the group share their view? We designed a new experiment to answer this question. Spectator participants were asked how many other participants they believe share their view of whether it is fair to redistribute income in a work task. They were then given the option to pay two cents to implement the distribution they found fair upon a pair of participants who had completed the work task. Although spectator participants systematically overestimate how many  share  their  fairness  view,  being  informed  about  the  true  number  does  not  affect  their decision  to  implement  the  distribution  they  found  fair.  The  results  suggest  that  people  are motivated to implement their fairness view regardless of whether their view is at odds with that of those who are affected.

If you are interested in talking to me or taking a look at my current work please email me at oivind[dot]schoyen[at]gmail[dot]com.