  While the benefits of common and public goods are shared, they tend to be
scarce when contributions are provided voluntarily. Failure to cooperate in the
provision or preservation of these goods is fundamental to sustainability
challenges, ranging from local fisheries to global climate change. In the real
world, such cooperative dilemmas occur in multiple interactions with complex
strategic interests and frequently without full information. We argue that
voluntary cooperation enabled across multiple coalitions (akin to
polycentricity) not only facilitates greater generation of non-excludable
public goods, but may also allow evolution toward a more cooperative, stable,
and inclusive approach to governance. Contrary to any previous study, we show
that these merits of multi-coalition governance are far more general than the
singular examples occurring in the literature, and are robust under diverse
conditions of excludability, congestability of the non-excludable public good,
and arbitrary shapes of the return-to-contribution function. We first confirm
the intuition that a single coalition without enforcement and with players
pursuing their self-interest without knowledge of returns to contribution is
prone to cooperative failure. Next, we demonstrate that the same pessimistic
model but with a multi-coalition structure of governance experiences relatively
higher cooperation by enabling recognition of marginal gains of cooperation in
the game at stake. In the absence of enforcement, public-goods regimes that
evolve through a proliferation of voluntary cooperative forums can maintain and
increase cooperation more successfully than singular, inclusive regimes.
