  For societies to produce or safeguard public goods, costly voluntary
contributions are often required. From the perspective of each individual,
however, it is advantageous not to volunteer such contributions, in the hope
that other individuals will carry the associated costs. This conflict can be
modeled as a volunteer's dilemma. To encourage rational individuals to make
voluntary contributions, a government or other social organizations can offer
rewards, to be shared among the volunteers. Here we apply such shared rewarding
to the generalized volunteer's dilemma, in which a threshold number of
volunteers is required for producing the public good. By means of theoretical
and numerical analyses, we show that without shared rewarding only two
evolutionary outcomes are possible: full defection or coexistence of volunteers
and non-volunteers. We show that already small rewards destabilize full
defection, stabilizing small fractions of volunteers instead. Furthermore, at
these intermediate reward levels, we find a hysteresis effect such that
increasing or decreasing group sizes can trigger different social outcomes. In
particular, when group size is increased, the fraction of volunteers first
increases gradually before jumping up abruptly; when group size is then
decreased again, the fraction of volunteers not only remains high, but even
continues to increase. As the shared reward is increased beyond a critical
level, the bi-stability underlying this hysteresis effect vanishes altogether,
and only a single social outcome remains, corresponding to the stable
coexistence of volunteers and non-volunteers. We find that this critical level
of shared rewarding is relatively small compared to the total cost of
contributing to the public good. These results show that the introduction of
shared rewarding is remarkably effective in overcoming defection traps in the
generalized volunteer's dilemma.
