A model for processes

combining competition
with cooperation
Mario Bunge

Foundations and Philosophy of Science Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Canada and
lnstituto de Investigaciones Filos3ficas, U.N.A.M., M~xico, DF, Mdxico
(Received December 19 75)

Cooperative processes are usually treated separately from competitive

processes. Such separation is often artificial, for there are a number of
processes, at all levels, where cooperation intertwines with competition. A
class of processes of this kind involving two component systems is
described. The components are assumed to cooperate until they attain an
optimum level, and to hinder each other's growth from then on. The
model boils down to a system of non-linear equations which are solved in
closed form for the most interesting case, the one where the process does
not even get started unless there is cooperation.

Introduction
In the biological literature cooperation has received far less
attention than competition, although processes of both
kinds are about equally conspicuous. (Indeed, the very
formation of a system, from atom through organism to
society, involves cooperation in some respect.) Worse, when
treated at all cooperation is usually dissociated from
competition. This divorce is artificial because there are
many processes where cooperation and competition
intertwine.
For example, each of the syntheses (physical, chemical,
biological, or social) A + B -+ C and A + D ~ E may be
construed as a cooperative process: the A's cooperate with
the B's to form C's, and likewise for the second reaction.
But if the two processes occur simultaneously at the same
place, (e.g. a chemical reactor), then the two cooperative
processes compete with each other: indeed, in that case the
B's and D's compete for the A's. This holds not only for
chemical reactions but also for a number of processes of
other kinds, such as the competition among groups (e.g.
families) of animals, every one of which is based on
cooperation.
The pervasiveness of processes of this kind suggests
building models incorporating both competition and
cooperation, either simultaneously (on different levels) or
in succession (on the same level). That this can be done is
shown below, where a simple two-component system,
which thrives on cooperation up to a certain point, is
described, after which the components compete with one
another and hinder each other's further growth.
Basic e q u a t i o n s
Assume that two things, or aggregates of things (such as
biological populations), to be called a and b, consume or
produce a third thing c. We make no assumption concerning
the nature of the components a and b or of the inputs or
outputs c, let alone the mechanism of consumption or
production. What we do assume is that each component by
itself consumes or produces c at a constant rate (possibly
nil) and that each may or may not succeed in making ends
meet. We further assume that the components are sure to
attain the optimum level (of consumption or production) if
they help one another. Finally, suppose that this
cooperation becomes intenser the more it is needed, that it
ceases when no longer needed, and from then onwards
turns into hindrance, so that growth remains under control.
Such an interaction between the system components can be
formalized as follows.
Let A (t) and B(t) be the instantaneous amounts of thing
c consumed or produced by the components a and b
respectively, and let a and/3 be the optimum (satiety)
levels. Further, let
A(0) -- cl < a , B(0) = c 2 < 3 (1)
be the initial values. In the absence of interaction the rates
are assumed to be constant (possibly zero):
dA dB
dt all' dt az2 with all,az2/>0 (2)
If these rates are nil, no processes occur. If they are
positive, each individual eventually attains and surpasses its
optimum level. (If the rates themselves should increase, A
and B should be construed as first-order derivatives.) If
cooperation sets in from the start, a will help b in
proportion to the latter's needs, i.e. in such a way that the
imbalance/3 - - B will be offset; b in turn contributes in
proportion to the imbalance a - A but not necessarily with
the same intensity. This mutual help, we have assumed, is

Appl. Math. Modelling, 1976, Vol 1, June 21

A model for processes combining competition with cooperation: Mario Bunge
positive while there is a deficit (negative balance); it needs. So much for the approximate solution to the
becomes nil on attaining satiety, and negative as soon as problem near the optimum state.
there is superavit (positive balance). The simplest formulas
representing such a cooperative process are the non-linear
Case w h e n c o o p e r a t i o n is n e c e s s a r y to start the
equations:
process
dA
- - = all +a12(c~--A) • B Suppose now that neither component of the system can
dt take o f f without the other's help, i.e. that an = am = 0. In
(3) this case the problem has an exact solution that is best
-- = a22 + a 2 1 ( 3 - B ) "A discussed in the state space of the system. In fact we divide
dt the first equation by the second to obtain:
with a0>10 for i,j = 1,2 dA a12 (or - - A ) B
_ (10)
dB a21 (3 -- B ) A
The coefficient a~2 measures the strength of the help a
gets from b, while a2~ measures the intensity of the help a Upon separating variables and integrating we obtain the
lends b. Clearly, when the level of A overtakes the satiety possible trajectories in the state space:
value a, the help turns into hindrance, and similarly for B.
At the optimum point (a,/3) there is neither help nor B + In [3 --B[ = a2~ (A + In la - - A l ) + d (1 1)
hindrance: each component fends for itself, so that the a12
solutions are the straight lines: where the integration constant d amounts to:
A = ant+q B = az2t+c~ (4)
d = c2 + l n l 3 - - c 2 [ _ a 2 1 (cl + l n l a - - C l [ ) (12)
Eliminating t between them we obtain: 1/12

B = c2 + az2 (A -- el )/all
which is a straight line in the state space of the system.
Let us now look at the process in the vicinity of the
optimum or satiety point.
(5) Equation (11) shows that both partners behave in like
manner. In particular both can attain their critical levels
and 3, which they could not without mutual help. If each
of them helps as hard as the other, i.e. a~2 = a2~, the
trajectory simplifies to:

B--A+ In [~-A--[
3--B
= d (13)
Process near the optimum point
To investigate the process in the vicinity of the optimum
In the vicinity of the satiety point (a,/3), A is negligible
point (c~,/3) it proves convenient to shift the origin to that compared with l n j a - - A I, and similarly for the other
point by making the changes of variables:
logarithmic term, whence we are left with:
X = A--a Y =B-/3 (6)
In fl -- B = d
In the neighbourhood of the optimum point X = Y = 0 we
can neglect the product X Y , so that the basic equations
which is equivalent to:
become:
13--Bt = edla-Al (14)
dX dY
- - + a12X = a n - - + a21 Y = a,22 (7)
dt dt If both partners have the same requirements (i.e. ct =/3),
the graph of this equation is a straight fine passing through
The solutions to these inhomogeneous equations for the critical point, i.e. both partners do equally well.
a12, a2~ 4= 0 are:
X = (a11//3a12) + C e -a123t
Case o f e q u a l p a r t n e r s
The general problem (3) has no closed form solution far
Y = (~22/aa21) + d e - a 2 1 a t (8)
from the critical point except when the two partners
where c and d are integration constants. The values o f the behave in exactly the same way. In this case, i.e. for
latter are found upon recalling the initial conditions (1). cl = c2 = c (no initial advantage), an = a22 (same
Translating back into the old coordinates we get: individual rates), at2 = a2x (symmetric help), and a = 3
(same requirements), we are left with a single exact
A(t) = a+(an/3a12)+ c l - - a - - an ] e-al2#t equation:
/3a~2/
(9) dX
/ dt al 1 + a x 2 ( a - - X ) ' X , X = A,B (15)
= + (a,2/aa,,) +lc2 --/3-- I. e -azl"'
\ Ota21] The general solution is:
Since by hypothesis the coefficients of the exponentials X = axat+Xh (16)
are negative, the contributions of the last terms are negative where Xh is the solution to the homogeneous equation. The
and growing with time, i.e. no sooner does a attain the latter is of the Bernoulli type and is linearized by the
level than its partner b turns against it. Something similar change of dependent variable Z = 1[Xh :
holds for b although its reaction against its partner's
prosperity may be quantitatively different. In sum neither dZ
dt ~- ax2Z = a12 (17)
partner allows the other to grab or to produce more than it

22 Appl. Math. Modelling, 1976, Vol 1, June

 A mode/for processes combining competition with cooperation: Marie Bunge
The solution is immediate: Our model does not take external limitations into
account: it focuses on an intrinsic control consisting of the
z = ( 1 / ~ ) + k e-a,~ t (18)
mutual checking of the system components. The
with k a real number. For z = 0, Z ( 0 ) = 1/c, so that: components interact cooperatively until they attain a
certain level, and start to compete with one another as soon
1 1 as they reach that level. The nature of the components and
k-
C O~ the precise interaction mechanism are not specified: our
model is quite general.
Hence we finally get:
It might be of interest to generalize our model to an
C
X(t) = axlt + (19) arbitrary number of components. A second generalization
c + ( ~ - - c) e -al2°~t of some interest would be to substitute stochastic
equations (involving transition or conditional probabilities)
If each partner is self-sufficient ( a l l = a22 > 0),
for our deterministic rate equations. A further model one
cooperation only speeds up the process up to the critical
might wish to build and analyse is one in which each
point and curbs the process after that point. Otherwise (i.e.
component is internally cooperative (hence stable) but
if all = a22 = 0), mutual help makes the process possible.
competes with at least one other system. (The internal
Indeed, the second term represents the growth of A (which
competition-external cooperation case must be ruled out
is equal to B) from the initial value c towards the asymptote
because of its extreme instability.)
A(oo) = a > c. Rivalry from this point on prevents
General models of this kind have at least three possible
unlimited growth in either production or consumption.
uses: (1) they may suggest the search for real systems (e.g.
This limitation takes place whether or not there is an
in morphogenesis, in neurophysiology or in ecology) that
external limitation such as scarcity of resources. The
approach a zero growth state in some variable as a result of
control is strictly internal, i.e. mutual.
their cooperative-competitive structure; (2) they may
stimulate the building of specific theories covering real
Conclusion systems behaving in the indicated way; (3) in the planning
of social controls. In particular our model suggests
Competition and cooperation, though mutually opposed,
redesigning a community in such a way that each member
may occur in the same system provided they occur either
helps his/her neighbour in proportion to his/her own
at different times or on different levels of organization.
ability and the other party's needs, and also controls his/her
B o t h in nature and in society competition and cooperation
partner's growth and is in turn controlled by it, thus
alter the pace of certain processes or even make them preventing scarcity as well as waste.
possible. This holds in particular for growth processes.
Now, there is no unlimited growth in nature: all growth
ends up by being checked. This curbing of growth is the
Acknowledgement
effect of external strictures, such as limited resources, or of
internal conditions, such as built-in controls (or intra- The generous support of the Canada Council is gratefully
systemic competition). acknowledged.

Appl. Math. Modelling, 1976, Vol 1, June 23