Coordination games explain institutional stability and tradition's authority through tacit consensus. [definitional]
The coordination game probably lies behind the stability of institutions and traditions and perhaps the phenomenon of leadership itself. Among the possible sets of rules that might govern a conflict, tradition points to the particular set that everyone can expect everyone else to be conscious of as a conspicuous candidate for adoption; it wins by default over those that cannot readily be identified by tacit consent. The force of many rules of etiquette and social restraint, including some (like the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition) that have been divested of their relevance or authority, seems to depend on their having become "solutions" to a coordination game: everyone expects everyone to expect everyone to expect observance, so that nonobservance carries the pain of conspicuousness.
XREF: Links to Thomas Schelling's focal point concept from The Strategy of Conflict, and David Lewis' convention theory; the collective-expectation regress mirrors these established frameworks.
Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, loc. 222