Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

The private solution trap in collective action problems across 34 nations

  • Eugene Malthouse*
  • , Charlie Pilgrim
  • , Daniel Sgroi
  • , Michela Accerenzi
  • , Antonio Alfonso
  • , Rana Umair Ashraf
  • , Max Baard
  • , Sanchayan Banerjee
  • , Alexis Belianin
  • , Swagata Bhattacharjee
  • , Mihir Bhattacharya
  • , Pablo Brañas-Garza
  • , Juan Camilo Cárdenas
  • , Miguel Carriquiry
  • , Syngjoo Choi
  • , Gwen Jiro Clochard
  • , Eduardo Ezekiel Denzon
  • , Bartlomiej Dessoulavy-Sliwinski
  • , Giorgio Dini
  • , Lu Dong
  • Antal Ertl, Filippos Exadaktylos, Emel Filiz-Ozbay, Sarah Lynn Flecke, Fabio Galeotti, Teresa Garcia-Muñoz, Nobuyuki Hanaki, Guillaume Hollard, Daniel Horn, Lingbo Huang, Doruk İriş, Hubert Janos Kiss, Juliane Koch, Jaromír Kovářík, Osbert Kwabena Boadi Kwarteng, Andreas Lange, Martin Leites, Thomas Ho Fung Leung, Wooyoung Lim, Meike Morren, Laila Nockur, Charles Yaw Okyere, Mayada Oudah, Ali I. Ozkes, Lionel Page, Junghyun Park, Stefan Pfattheicher, Antonios Proestakis, Carlos Ramos, Mapi Ramos-Sosa, Muhammad Saeed Ashraf, Muhammad Ryan Sanjaya, Rene Schwaiger, Omar Sene, Fei Song, Sarah Spycher, Rostislav Staněk, Norman Tanchingco, Alessandro Tavoni, Vera te Velde, María José Vázquez De Francisco, Martine Visser, Joseph Tao Yi Wang, Willy Wang, Wei Chien Weng, Katharina Werner, Amanda Wijayanti, Ralph Winkler, John Wooders, Li Ying, Wei Zhen, Thomas Hills
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Collective action problems emerge when individual incentives and group interests are misaligned, as in the case of climate change. Individuals involved in these problems are generally considered to have two options: contribute toward public solutions such as global warming mitigation or free ride. However, many collective action problems today involve a third option of investing in a “private solution” such as local adaptation. The availability of this third option can lead to a private solution trap whereby private solutions are adopted, collectively optimal public solutions are not provided, and existing inequalities are exacerbated. We investigated the private solution trap with a collective action game featuring private and public solutions, wealth inequality determined by luck or merit, and participants from 34 countries. We found that the joint existence of private solutions and wealth inequality had a consistent effect across countries: Participants given a higher endowment adopted private solutions almost twice as often as those given a lower endowment, regardless of whether it was determined by luck or merit, and contributed proportionally less toward public solutions. Wealth inequality increased in every country and those given lower endowments were often left unprotected as public solutions were not provided. Across countries, cultural values of hierarchy and harmony were associated with preferences for private and public solutions, respectively. We also identified two universal pathways toward public solution provision: early contributions and conditional cooperation. Our findings highlight the ubiquity of the private solution trap, its cultural underpinnings, and its potential consequences for global collective action problems.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere2504632123
Pages (from-to)1-11
Number of pages11
JournalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Volume123
Issue number12
Early online date20 Mar 2026
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Mar 2026

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2026 the Author(s).

Keywords

  • climate change
  • cross-cultural study
  • human cooperation
  • private solutions
  • social dilemma

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The private solution trap in collective action problems across 34 nations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this