Another way to regulate behavior is reward. When mothers get together over lunch or coffee and discuss raising children they might mention how it was necessary or successful to use rewards to help their children develop some particular proper social behavior. That will often be by way of apology because many mothers do understand that rewards are not a practical means of regulating adult behavior, and they realize their children must eventually learn the concept of reciprocity in order to mature.
It is not practical to pay people for being good. It is not practical for example to pay people for not running stop signs. Rather it is far more practical to charge a fine when they do run them. Another reason to be good than avoiding punishment is that other people are likewise good. We do not pay people for each shower they take, but we do reciprocate by showering ourselves. You don't pay everyone who watches over your sidewalks, but you might pay attention yourselves who is regularly seen on sidewalks.
Of course the police are paid to watch over sidewalks, but without your help they could not be very effective. A lawful and orderly society depends on people paying attention for the sake of others in reciprocation for the attention paid them.
Social behavior probably should not be equated with things that have a readily found market value such as potatoes. Money has been found to be a practical way to regulate exchanges of things with a readily found market value. Money has not been found to be a practical way to regulate social behavior, rather reciprocity has been found to do that best. Reciprocity would probably not work as a means of regulating the exchanges of market goods, but that doesn't mean it isn't best to regulate other things.
Has someone saved your life? What is the monetary value of that? A wealthy person might pay a reward to his rescuer. It might not be possible for a poor person to pay much at all. That is where reciprocity works best, to do those things that are sensible and helpful for someone else along the line. A poor person can be ready to save the life of someone else should the circumstances occur naturally.
A stunning problem developing lately is the expectation of compensation for various types of civic behavior. A perhaps appropriate compensation is for jury duty which is essentailly just a civic duty, but that should not be confused with other expectations of compensation.
A good way to explain it is that although the jury will be deciding how people will spend several years their lives, the jurors are only paid for the time they must take to make the decision and at a remarkably low rate. Often it is the case that they are paid close to the minimum wage. The details of their exact contribution are generally not assessed and they are paid by the day, rather than the hour, even when not serving a full day. Many people want to get out of jury duty because they can make more money at their regular jobs.
Compare grabbing a nearby flotation device and tossing it to a drowning person. How much of an hour did that take? What is the appropriate compensation? It has been already noted here that monetary rewards are very problematic and it is best to simply allow the rescued person to perhaps one day rescue someone else in a similar manner.
How much does an insurance company pay for the loss of an arm? What is the value of the arm? Insurance companies do not pay the value of the arm because there is no way to fairly determine it. The insurance company instead pays an amount agreed in advance and written into the policy, or other methods just as arbitrary. Different people can insure their arms for different amounts and of course pay premiums appropriate to that amount and the chances of needing to be paid that amount.
In the history of the United States one political party or another has been for a strong central government and perhaps more governmental solutions to more problems. Before the Civil War the Republican Party and its predecessors were for strong government. After the Civil War there was a reversal of roles as people discovered the government can provide things of value as a means to regulate society.
Reciprocity is not a governmental solution. Punishments and rewards are the only governmental means of regulating behavior. The principles of reciprocity are difficult to codify.
The Republican Party is known, these days anyway, as the party of smaller government. There are two very different reasons for wanting smaller government. One is that many things are better handled by other means such as religion or science. Reciprocity is one of those means. Another reason to want smaller government is simply to have fewer rules to follow all around, to do whatever pleases them.
Exact figures are difficult to obtain, but it could be fair to say that Republicans who follow Trump have not displayed much if any knowledge of religion, science or any reciprocity. Trump can still easily win again in November unless the Democrats develop more sense. Their herd is also in need of much schooling.