The Paradox of Strategic Altruism

Abstract

Can altruism serve as the behavioral foundation for efficient institutional design? We study full implementation in Berge equilibrium, the solution concept that formalizes strategic altruism: each agent's opponents collectively maximize her payoff. While Berge equilibrium resolves the Prisoner's Dilemma and can eliminate cooperation failures in social dilemmas, we show that this optimism does not survive the move from individual behavior to institutional design. First, we show that the weak Pareto optimal rule is not implementable in Berge equilibrium. Second, on the unrestricted domain of strict preferences, any social choice rule that is both weakly Pareto efficient and implementable in Berge equilibrium must be dictatorial. Finally, we show that Berge implementability is strictly more demanding than Nash implementability: every social goal achievable under strategic altruism is also achievable under self-interest, but not vice versa. The very feature that makes Berge equilibrium appealing at the behavioral level, that is, opponents protecting each agent's payoff, is precisely what forecloses efficient, non-dictatorial institutions at the design level.