Multilevel public goods game: Levelling up,substitution and crowding-in effects

In an online multilevel public goods experiment, we implement four treatments where we gradually increase the marginal per capita return of the global public good. First, we find evidence of an increase in the contribution to the global good (levelling-up effect). Secondly, subjects fund their higher contribution to the global good by reducing their contribution to the local good (substitution effect) rather than by increasing total contribution, i.e., the sum of their contributions to the local and the global good (marginal crowding-in effect). Moreover, we observe that total contribution increases as a consequence of the mere introduction of the global good (categorical crowding-in effect). Finally, we observe that subjects continue to contribute to both public goods even when they are dominated in terms of costs and returns.     

The effect of recommended contributions in the voluntary provision of public goods

Recommended contributions are often observed in fundraising campaigns for charitable and other public goods. We present an experiment investigating the impact of recommended contributions in a voluntary threshold public goods process. We find that when valuations for the public good are heterogeneous, recommended contributions significantly increase the likelihood of efficient provision, although when valuations are homogeneous, the effect of recommendations is less compelling. This article represents a first step in understanding recommended contributions and other nonbinding, cheap-talk announcements in public goods provision and charitable contributions.     

Communication, equity and the voluntary provision of a public good by heterogeneous groups

Twenty-four laboratory sessions were conducted to evaluate the roles of communication and group heterogeneity when voluntary contributions determine the level of public good provision by small groups of individuals. Simple heterogeneity has one individual in a group having either greater endowment of resources or a greater preference for the public good than the others. Complex heterogeneity has one individual in a group having both higher endowment and greater preference for the public good. Without communication, members of heterogeneous groups tend to coordinate more on equal contribution shares than predicted by the conventional public goods model but consistent with a model incorporating a preference for equity. The distribution of relative contributions and total payoffs within groups exhibit strong interactions between communication and heterogeneity, leading to less equitable distributions of payoffs as heterogeneity becomes more complex. A model of equity theory helps to organize the results. Results suggest that communication may refocus the objective of group members.     

MINIMUM LEVELS AND FRAMING IN PUBLIC GOOD PROVISION

Using a laboratory experiment in the field, we examine how the framing of a social dilemma, give to or take from a public good, interacts with a policy intervention that enforces a minimum contribution level to the public good. We find significantly higher cooperation in the give frame than in the take frame in our standard public goods experiment. When a minimum contribution level is introduced, contributions are crowded out in the give frame but crowded in in the take frame. Our results show the importance of choosing the frame when making policy recommendations. (JEL C91, H41)     

VOTING, PUNISHMENT, AND PUBLIC GOODS

Researchers have found that voting can help increase voluntary contributions to a public good—provided enforcement through a third party. Not all collective agreements, however, guarantee third-party enforcement. We design an experiment to explore whether a voting rule with and without endogenous punishment increases contributions to a public good. Our results suggest that voting by itself does not increase cooperation, but if voters can punish violators, contributions increase significantly. While costly punishment increases contributions at the price of lower efficiency, overall efficiency for a voting-with-punishment rule still exceeds the level observed for a voting-without-punishment rule. ( JEL C92, D72, H41)     

Metanorms and antisocial punishment

Contributions to public goods benefit all group members, yet research shows that generous group members are sometimes punished. We argue that when such antisocial punishment efforts are public, the consistency of group member contributions will encourage individuals to punish atypically generous group members. Similarly, when behavior of group members is consistent, the publicness of punishment will increase antisocial punishment. Both of these effects will be weaker for individuals who are interested in getting to know the generous deviant. We test our hypotheses in a public goods experiment and find support. Our findings contribute to the norms literature, in particular, to understanding of antisocial punishment.     

COMBINING MONETARY AND SOCIAL SANCTIONS TO PROMOTE COOPERATION

We employ an experimental approach to consider the impact of a combination of formal and informal sanctions on contribution levels for a specific type of public good. We find that when both sanctions are available, contributions and overall welfare are higher than when only one of the two sanctioning systems is available. The availability of an array of sanctions of varying severity appears to enhance welfare. (JEL C92 )     

THREAT AND PUNISHMENT IN PUBLIC GOOD EXPERIMENTS

Experimental studies of social dilemmas have shown that while the existence of a sanctioning institution improves cooperation within groups, it also has a detrimental impact on group earnings in the short run. Could the introduction of pre‐play threats to punish have enough of a beneficial impact on cooperation, while not incurring the cost associated with actual punishment, so that they increase overall welfare? We report an experiment in which players can issue non‐binding threats to punish others based on their contribution levels to a public good. After observing others' actual contributions, they choose their actual punishment level. We find that threats increase the level of contributions significantly. Efficiency is improved, but only in the latter periods. However, the possibility of sanctioning differences between threatened and actual punishment leads to lower threats, cooperation, and welfare, restoring them to levels equal to or below the levels attained in the absence of threats. (JEL C92, H41, D63)     

VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION GAMES: EFFICIENT PRIVATE PROVISION OF PUBLIC GOODS

This paper reports on a series of laboratory experiments designed to evaluate a mechanism for the voluntary provision of public good. The public good is provided if the total contributions meet or exceed a threshold and all contributions are returned if the public good is not provided. The members of the group all know the threshold, the incomes, and the valuations assigned the public good by all other members. The results support the prediction that this mechanism will yield Pareto efficient outcomes and suggest that economic agents adopt strategies which form equilibria satisfying certain refinements to the Nash equilibrium.     

On the behavioural relevance of optional and mandatory impure public goods

Impure public goods combine a private good with a public good. Often, impure public goods have a charitable or ethical dimension, giving ethically motivated consumers a convenient option to contribute to public goods through the marketplace (in addition to direct donations). Impure public goods could potentially promote ethical giving or alternatively hinder charitable behaviour. We implement an economics experiment with a between-subject design to test the behavioural relevance of impure public goods with only a token (i.e. small) contribution to a public good. Contributions to the public good are negatively affected by the presence of impure public goods with token contributions. We explore one mechanism to offset this negative impact by making the token impure public good mandatory. We observe higher average contributions and several positive impacts on charitable behaviour, which supports the claim that this mechanism can potentially offset the negative impact of impure public goods.     

Fairness and reputation effects in a provision point contributions process

This article reports on an investigation of how issues of fairness and reputation affect individual contributions in a group decision-making setting. In the context of a threshold public goods provision experiment, treatments were performed to determine how individuals react to limited and unlimited information about the contributions of other group members. Experimental results show that revealing anonymous information about individual contribution behavior caused a concern about equity, which led to decreased average contributions and a higher variance in contributions. These effects were partially offset when individual-specific contribution information was displayed. In their conclusion, the authors discuss how the results apply to different fundraising environments.     

INCOMPLETE INFORMATION STRENGTHENS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SOCIAL APPROVAL

We present a theoretical model of a public good game in which the expression of social approval induces pro‐social behavior. Using a laboratory experiment with earned heterogeneous endowments, we test our model. The main hypothesis is that the expression of social approval increases cooperative behavior even if reputation building is impossible. We vary the information available and investigate how this affects the expression of social approval and individual contributions. The expression of social approval significantly increases contributions. However, the increase is smaller if additional information is provided, suggesting that social approval is more effective if subjects receive a noisy signal about others' contributions. (JEL C72, C91, D71, D83)     

Negative reciprocity and its relation to anger-like emotions in identity-homogeneous and -heterogeneous groups

Several studies have shown that social identity fosters the provision of public goods and enhances the willingness to reciprocate the cooperative behavior of group members. Nonetheless, the question of how social identity affects negative reciprocity in identity-homogeneous and -heterogeneous groups has only received little attention. Consequently, we seek to fill this gap by examining whether social identity affects individuals’ willingness to sanction deviating group members in a public good context. Moreover, we devote particular attention to the role of anger-like emotions in negative reciprocity. To test our hypotheses, we employ one-shot public good games in a strategy method with punishment opportunity and induced social identity. Our results indicate that members of identity-homogeneous groups are prone to reveal less negative reciprocity than identity-heterogeneous groups when they face contributions smaller than their own. We also find that anger-like emotions much more strongly influence punishment behavior when individuals are matched with members of different identities than in identity-homogenous groups. These findings contribute to an increased understanding of the nature of social identity and its impact on reciprocity, improving economists’ ability to predict behavior while taking emotions into consideration.     

Is there a hidden cost of imposing a minimum contribution level for public good contributions?

We examine the effects of either exogenously imposing or endogenously letting subjects choose whether to impose minimum contribution levels (MCLs) in a linear public goods experiment using the strategy method. Our results on contribution levels to the public goods are fairly independent of how MCLs are imposed. We find that the main effect of an MCL on unconditional contributions is that it increases low contribution levels to the MCL imposed, while the effect of those contributing more than the MCL before its introduction depends on the size of the MCL. Unexpectedly, there is much more crowding out for a low MCL than for a relatively high MCL. However, the distribution of contribution types is stable across different MCLs.     

Cooperation between newcomers and incumbents: The role of normative disagreements

Cooperation in groups often requires individual members to make costly contributions that benefit the group as a whole. Prior research suggests that shared norms can help to support ingroup cooperation by prescribing common standards of how much to contribute. These common standards may be disrupted when groups undergo membership change, i.e., when members from outgroups enter the ingroup. When newcomers and incumbents have different notions about how much to contribute, a normative disagreement ensues that could undermine cooperation and the extent to which individuals identify with the group. In a laboratory experiment, we manipulate whether newcomers and incumbents disagree about how much to contribute in a public goods game with peer punishment. We examine whether normative disagreement between newcomers and incumbents affects newcomer-incumbent relations in terms of group identification, the emergence of a social norm, and costly punishment. The main goal is to test whether normative disagreement and the resulting newcomer-incumbent relations harm cooperation in terms of contributions to the common good. We find that normative disagreement between newcomers and incumbents negatively affects the emergence of a shared social norm and lowers feelings of group identification. Contrary to expectations, normative disagreement does not affect cooperation negatively. Instead, participants adjust their behavior to each other’s standards, using punishment for norm enforcement. This punishment is especially directed at low-contributing newcomers, leading them to conform to the incumbents’ higher contribution standards.     

The Fragility of a Nudge: the power of self-set norms to contain a social dilemma

Can self-set normative goals restrain free-riding in a social dilemma? In a first experimental study, we test the effect of two different types of self-set normative goals on people’s willingness to cooperate in a public good game. Focusing on the level of contributions that one can at least be expected to make proves effective at restraining the material incentive to free-ride. Yet in two later studies, with only a minimal change in the wording of the goal, the effect does not replicate. The mental process is still present. But if the overall level of cooperation is higher, the effect is not strong enough to significantly increase contributions. The nudge does not work if the context is too cooperative in the first place.     

A CLEAR AND PRESENT MINORITY: HETEROGENEITY IN THE SOURCE OF ENDOWMENTS AND THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC GOODS

We conduct public goods experiments in which participant groups are heterogeneous in regards to the source of their endowments. We find that this dimension of heterogeneity significantly reduces contributions to the public good, yielding strong support for the Nash prediction of minimal contributions. These minimal contributions arise in environments in which there exists a clear minority in terms of source of endowments. We discuss these results in light of current research on the influence of heterogeneous populations on public goods provision and redistributive policies. (JEL C9, D63, H4, J15)     

Children's altruism in public good and dictator experiments

We examine the development of altruistic and free-riding behavior in 6-12 year-old children. We find that the level of altruistic behavior in children is similar to that of adults but that repetition has a different effect. Younger children's contributions of older children, like those of adults, tend to decline. Group attachment is associated with higher contributions. Contributions in a subsequent dictator experiment are correlated with first-round contributions in the public good experiment, but are not strongly correlated with last-round contributions.     

COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATION AND PRO‐SOCIAL EMOTIONS TO ENHANCE COOPERATION: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM FISHING COMMUNITIES IN COLOMBIA

This paper presents the results from a series of framed field experiments conducted in fishing communities off the Caribbean coast of Colombia. The goal is to investigate the relative effectiveness of exogenous regulatory pressure and pro‐social emotions in promoting cooperative behavior in a public goods context. The random public revelation of an individual's contribution and its consequences for the rest of the group leads to significantly higher public good contributions and social welfare than regulatory pressure, even under regulations that are designed to motivate fully efficient contributions. (JEL C93, H41, Q20, Q28)