nach oben

Social Choice and Welfare

Erschienen in:

01.01.2015

Community projects: an experimental analysis of a fair implementation process

verfasst von: Simona Cicognani, Anna D’Ambrosio, Werner Güth, Simone Pfuderer, Matteo Ploner

Erschienen in: Social Choice and Welfare | Ausgabe 1/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

We define and experimentally test a public provision mechanism that meets three basic ethical requirements and allows community members to influence, via monetary bids, which of several projects is implemented. For each project, participants are assigned personal values, which can be positive or negative. We provide either public or private information about personal values. This produces two distinct public provision games, which are experimentally implemented and analyzed for various projects. In spite of the complex experimental task, participants do not rely on bidding their own personal values as an obvious simple heuristic whose general acceptance would result in fair and efficient outcomes. Rather, they rely on strategic underbidding. Although underbidding is affected by projects’ characteristics, the provision mechanism mostly leads to the implementation of the most efficient project.

Vorheriger Artikel Comparing two-dimensional distributions: a questionnaire-experimental approach

Nächster Artikel Bounded response and the equivalence of nonmanipulability and independence of irrelevant alternatives

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

In the context of the NIMBY literature, Kunreuther and Portney (1991) propose a similar approach to guide decision making for the siting of noxious facilities.

Costs could be negative, e.g., when implementation is generating revenues rather than costs. However, this possibility is neglected here.

Requirement 3 postulates equal treatment of all parties according to bids that are objectively and interpersonally observable and verifiable. As such, it defines an aspect of the game form and not of actual earnings. As pointed out by a reviewer, there may be other specifications which, however, do not capture the basic principle of democratic representation where all votes are weighted equally.

Personal values should not be interpreted as endowments but as benefits/disbenefits from implementing a certain project, irrespective of the reasons that led to this valuation.

The same applies to democratic election rules and, more generally, to legally codified mechanisms which must be applicable across the board, i.e., even to the usual “ill-defined cases.”

Overbidding may result in a loss of pocket-money in the experiment and in a disadvantageous final allocation for those overbidding relative to those not overbidding. Moreover, a participant who decides to overbid will leave the overall benefit to society unchanged and only reduce her own payoff in favor of the others. This makes overbidding unlikely also for individuals endowed with conventional social preference.

A project is efficient according to personal values when the sum of the personal values for some \(S\) at least covers its cost \(C(S)\).

This, of course, applies also to mechanisms which are dominance solvable. However, more often than not, such mechanisms are impossible (see Güth 2011).

We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this issue.

The same outcome would be achieved if all participants underbid or overbid by the same amount; however, this seems rather unlikely, even when personal values are commonly known and quite unimaginable when they are not.

Exceptional cases are when personal values add up to the costs.

The same logic applies to participants with negative personal values who may try to increase their payoff by posting a negative bid smaller than their personal value, provided, of course, that the other bids cover the costs and compensate her negative bid.

In experimental bargaining games, asymmetries in payoffs often lead to bargaining failures (Kagel et al. 1996; Schmitt 2004). While in the bargaining literature this failure may be attributed to conflicting fairness norms, this is not the case in our game, where the only salient fair and efficient behavior is bidding one’s personal value, even if it is negative.

A series of Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests reveals that rounds based on the same prospect can be pooled together.

To warrant independence of observations, the tests are performed employing average values at the individual level.

Given that participants did not receive any feedback during the experiment, groups do not affect choices over the course of the experiment. Consequently, a better measure of project implementation is obtained by taking into account all possible combinations of bids for a given project in a given round and not only the bids in each group of three participants. This implies that, in each round and for each project, \(10^3\) and \(9^3\) triplets of bids are obtained in the public and private information conditions, respectively.

To warrant independence of observations, we computed the frequency of implementation of the socially most desirable projects at the group level for both information conditions. The difference in the central tendencies of the distributions thus computed was then tested with the support of a non-parametric test. The same procedure was followed for the other tests reported in this section.

The dependent variable \(Rel.dev_i=\frac{b_i-v_i}{|v_i|}\times 100\) cannot be computed for those subjects with a personal value equal to zero. Accordingly, the regression analysis is conducted on 5,757 out of 5,985 available observations.

To measure the underbidding margin, we compute the relative underbid which, when jointly implemented, generates nil surplus. In Prospect 2, the average underbidding margin across projects is equal to 0.339, while for other prospects the same measure is always smaller than 0.250.

Andreoni J (1995) Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: the effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Q J Econ 110(1):1–21CrossRef

Andreoni J, Miller J (2002) Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica 70:737–753CrossRef

Bagnoli M, Lipman B (1989) Provision of public goods: fully implementing the core through private contributions. Rev Econ Stud 56:583–601CrossRef

Bagnoli M, McKee M (1991) Voluntary contribution games: efficient private provision of public goods. Econ Inquiry 29(2):351–366CrossRef

Bergstrom T, Blume L, Varian H (1986) On the private provision of public goods. J Public Econ 29(1):25–49CrossRef

Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) Erc: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am Econ Rev 90(1):166–193CrossRef

Cadsby C, Maynes E (1999) Voluntary provision of threshold public goods with continuous contributions: experimental evidence. J Public Econ 71:53–73CrossRef

Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Q J Econ 117(3):817–869CrossRef

Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Q J Econ 114(3):817–868CrossRef

Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp Econ 10(2):171–178CrossRef

Frey BS, Oberholzer-Gee F (1997) The cost of price incentives: an empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. Am Econ Rev 87(4):746–755

Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (2000) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Greiner B (2004) An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In: Kremer K, Macho V (eds) Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63. Ges. für Wiss. Datenverarbeitung, Göttingen

Güth W (1986) Auctions, public tenders, and fair division games: an axiomatic approach. Math Soc Sci 11(3):282–294CrossRef

Güth W (2011) Rules (of bidding) to generate equal stated profits: an axiomatic approach. J Inst Theor Econ 167(4):608–612

Güth W, Kliemt H (2013) Consumer sovereignty goes collective: ethical basis, axiomatic characterization and experimental evidence. In: Held M, Kubon-Gilke G, Sturn R (eds) Jahrbuch Normative und Institutionelle Grundfragen der Ökonomik, vol 12. Grenzen der Konsumentensouveränität, Metropolis

Güth W, Koukoumelis A, Levati MV (2011) One man’s meat is another man’s poison. An experimental study of voluntarily providing public projects that raise mixed feelings. Jena Economic Research Papers # 2011–034

Kagel JH (1995) Auctions: a survey of experimental research. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (eds) The handbook of experimental economics, chapter 7. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Kagel JH, Kim C, Moser D (1996) Fairness in ultimatum games with asymmetric information and asymmetric payoffs. Games Econ Behav 13:100–110CrossRef

Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1991) Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Persp 5(1):193–206CrossRef

Kunreuther H, Portney P (1991) Wheel of misfortune: a lottery/auction mechanism for siting of noxious facilities. J Energy Eng 117(3):125–132CrossRef

Ledyard JO (1995) Public goods: a survey of experimental research. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (eds) The handbook of experimental economics, chapter 4. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Marks M, Croson R (1998) Alternative rebate rules in the provision of a threshold public good: an experimental investigation. J Public Econ 67:195–220CrossRef

Rapoport A, Chammah AM (1965) Prisoner’s Dilemma: a study in conflict and cooperation. The university of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

Rondeau D, Schulze WD, Poe GL (1999) Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism. J Public Econ 72(3):455–470CrossRef

Schelling TC (1958) The strategy of conflict prospectus for a reorientation of game theory. J Conf Resolut 2(3):203–264CrossRef

Schmitt P (2004) On perceptions of fairness: the role of valuations, outside options, and information in ultimatum bargaining games. Exp Econ 7:49–73CrossRef

Sonnemans J, Schram A, Offerman T (1998) Public good provision and public bad prevention: the effect of framing. J Econ Behav Organ 34(1):143–161CrossRef

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1130CrossRef

Varian HR (1974) Equity, envy, and efficiency. J Econ Theory 9:63–91CrossRef

Titel: Community projects: an experimental analysis of a fair implementation process
verfasst von: Simona Cicognani
Anna D’Ambrosio
Werner Güth
Simone Pfuderer
Matteo Ploner
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2015
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Social Choice and Welfare / Ausgabe 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0176-1714
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-217X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-014-0822-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

Certificates of optimality for minimum norm biproportional apportionments

A graph interpretation of the least squares ranking method

“It’s All in the Mix!”- Internalizing externalities with R&D subsidies and environmental liability

Comparing two-dimensional distributions: a questionnaire-experimental approach

An Interview with Kotaro Suzumura

Unanimity in attribute-based preference domains