Which one is the correct model: corruption as a prisoner’s dilemma or an assurance game?

A prisoner’s dilemma indicates two individuals not cooperating even if it seems the best option for both of them. If corruption is applied to a prisoner’s dilemma, it may be explained through a situation when two individuals (both at the same time) are to decide whether to accept a bribe or not. Corruption results in a medium-level gain for both A and B because the "pot" is shared. If A participates in corruption and B does not, the one who does so benefits greatly while the other suffers severely for acting honestly in a corrupt setting. If neither participates in corruption, they both obtain a minor advantage because the system as a whole may be improved, but they lose out on immediate benefits. In this situation, both parties' preferred course of action is to engage in corruption because, regardless of what the other party does, doing so will either make their situation better or not much worse. This connection illustrates why neither would not participate in corruption, or not accept a bribe in this scenario.

An assurance game indicates when two people can both benefit by taking the same course of action and can rely on one another to follow suit. Knowing that the system is reliable and the environment is stable and predictable, A and B will both benefit greatly if they decide not to engage in corruption. The honest party incurs a penalty while the corrupt party receives a moderate advantage if A avoids corruption while B participates. They both gain a medium-level profit, similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma, if both participate in corruption. The optimum result for both, however, depends on their ability to ensure one another that they are honest. In this case, the difficulty lies in coordinating to provide the best result. The optimum outcome is obtained for both A and B if they can rely on one another to be truthful.

While both have different benefits as well as shortcomings, in my opinion, a prisoner’s dilemma seems to be more pragmatic. Similar to peer pressure in school to fit in, fear of an alienation or isolation may lead people to participate in corruption. It contains an idea of the temptation that people frequently battle. While an assurance game can be called ideal, a prisoner’s dilemma serves as a better analogy due to the ambiguities of human nature and complexity of society.