I always had an interest in learning about what other people have discovered about designing a system where people do what they should do or at least never certain things, as in they should have consequences.

For example, You hire a contractor to build a wall. You don't trust him, you hire an inspector. But then how do you make sure inspector isn't taking bribes from the contractor level below him? Hire another inspector?

Solutions with varying degree of success that I can think of are:

  • anonymize so communication can take place between parties
  • rotate randomly so it's hard to tell who will be in power
  • group check; can't bribe all, have multiple inspectors (at least before they form a group)
  • use computer in a system that documents and eliminate subjective feedback in the system
  • crypto; plays into anon/random scheme.
  • seperation of power so collusion by two would agitate the third
  • game theory stuff

I wonder if there is comprehensive research or academic branch on this. Sociology?

I can't tell which tag to use, and I don't really visit this site much so please bear with me.

  • Sorry, we don't deal with actual contents of research (that's why you can't find the tag to use). This question is off-topic. – scaaahu Feb 10 at 3:57
  • Maybe take this to Politics.SE? – Aaron Brick Feb 10 at 4:56
  • The motto is "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" - who watches the watchmen? The topic is roughly falling into the "Trust" category if talking about computers or it might be followed in studies political systems. Also check out "Arrow's Theorem" for the impossibility of fair (ungameable) preference voting models. It really depends in which direction you want to take it. Great question, but, in any case, this is not the right site for this. – Captain Emacs Feb 10 at 9:09
  • thanks for responses, I appreciate it. I will explore the ideas presented. – Muhammad Umer Feb 10 at 15:25