Some parts of your text remind me to Scott (Seeing like a State). Thank you so much for the recommendation.
Another term used for Hayek’s explanations is the Walrasian Auctioneer.
“But sometimes these pairwise interactions are aided by something other than mutual feelings of indebtedness, social pressure, currency, or social learning biases”… can also be understood as symbolic public goods?
“One way of thinking about how culture and civic identity affect the capacity for collective action is by thinking about the formation of what Rao (2008) calls “symbolic public goods.” Rao builds on the work of Chwe (1999, 2001), who demonstrates how collective action needs to distinguish between structure and strategy. Chwe’s basic argument goes as follows. Most models of collective action assume, implicitly, some preexisting “common knowledge.” When a group of individuals plays a collective action game, whether static or dynamic, it is assumed
that individual A knows the payoffs, information sets, costs, incentives, possible moves, and so forth faced by individual B. Individual B, in turn, knows all of this about individual A and knows that individual A knows everything about individual B. Individual A, in turn, knows that individual B knows that individual A knows, and so on. This common knowledge assumption permits games of strategy to be played with a common understanding of the rules of the game: everyone knows how everyone else is playing. In order to understand collective action, therefore, it is crucial to understand its social context through the symbolic public goods that
facilitate it. Yet symbolic public goods are themselves the product of strategy and contestation. They can take a variety of forms, including intangible processes of identity formation such as nationalism; physical entities, such as mosques and temples; and periodic ritual events, such as festivals. All of these forms share characteristics of public goods, in the sense that they can be simultaneously “nonrival” (consumption by one person does not reduce the ability of others to consume the same good) and sometimes “nonexcludable” (it is not possible to deny anyone access to the good).” (Mansuri, G. and Rao, V., 2013, Localizing development. Does participation work?. Washington: The World Bank. P. 69-70.)