IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ntj/journl/v63y2010i4p635-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Behavioral Public Economics Theories in the Laboratory

Author

Listed:
  • Alm, James

Abstract

“Behavioral economics,” or the application of methods and evidence from other social sciences to economics, has increased greatly in significance in the last two decades. An important method by which many of its predictions have been tested has been via laboratory experiments. In this paper I survey and assess experimental tests of various applications of behavioral economics to the specific area of public economics, or “behavioral public economics.” I discuss the basic elements of behavioral economics, the methodology of experimental economics, applications of experimental methods to behavioral public economics, and topics in which future applications should prove useful.

Suggested Citation

  • Alm, James, 2010. "Testing Behavioral Public Economics Theories in the Laboratory," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 63(4), pages 635-658, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ntj:journl:v:63:y:2010:i:4:p:635-58
    DOI: 10.17310/ntj.2010.4.02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2010.4.02
    Download Restriction: Access is restricted to subscribers and members of the National Tax Association.
    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2010.4.02
    Download Restriction: Access is restricted to subscribers and members of the National Tax Association.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17310/ntj.2010.4.02?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Konrad, Kai A. & Lohse, Tim & Qari, Salmai, 2011. "Customs compliance and the power of imagination," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship & Project "The Future of Fiscal Federalism" SP II 2011-108, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Sielaff, Christian, 2011. "Steuerkomplexität und Arbeitsangebot: Eine experimentelle Analyse," Discussion Papers 2011/13, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    3. Philipp Doerrenberg & Denvil Duncan & Clemens Fuest & Andreas Peichl, 2014. "Nice Guys Finish Last: Do Honest Taxpayers Face Higher Tax Rates?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 29-53, February.
    4. Guerra, Alice & Harrington, Brooke, 2018. "Attitude–behavior consistency in tax compliance: A cross-national comparison," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 184-205.
    5. Jason DeBacker & Bradley T. Heim & Anh Tran & Alexander Yuskavage, 2015. "Legal Enforcement and Corporate Behavior: An Analysis of Tax Aggressiveness after an Audit," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(2), pages 291-324.
    6. Sascha Hokamp & Götz Seibold, 2014. "Tax Compliance and Public Goods Provision. An Agent-based Econophysics Approach," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 6(4), pages 217-236, December.
    7. Fochmann, Martin & Wolf, Nadja, 2019. "Framing and salience effects in tax evasion decisions – An experiment on underreporting and overdeducting," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 260-277.
    8. Schröder, Melanie & Schmitt, Norma & Heynemann, Britta & Brünn, Claudia, 2013. "Income Taxation and Labor Supply: An Experiment on Couple's Work Effort," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79735, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. Roberto Dell'Anno & Vincenzo Maria De Rosa, 2013. "The Relevance of the Theory of Fiscal Illusion. The Case of the Italian Tax System," HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(2), pages 63-92.
    10. Vilen Lipatov, 2014. "Compliance Dynamics Generated by Social Interaction Rules," CESifo Working Paper Series 4767, CESifo.
    11. Sergiu Burlacu & Austėja Kažemekaitytė & Piero Ronzani & Lucia Savadori, 2022. "Blinded by worries: sin taxes and demand for temptation under financial worries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 141-187, February.
    12. Anna P. Kireyenko, 2015. "Methods of investigating taxation in today’s foreign literature," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 1(2-3), pages 209-228.
    13. Kai A. Konrad & Tim Lohse & Salmai Qari, 2017. "Compliance with Endogenous Audit Probabilities," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 119(3), pages 821-850, July.
    14. Schröder, Melanie & Schmitt, Norma & Mantei, Britta & Brünn, Claudia, 2014. "Social Norms or Income Taxation - What Drives Couple's Labor Supply? Experimental Evidence," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100375, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. Blaufus, Kay & Braune, Matthias & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen & Jacob, Martin, 2015. "Does legality matter? The case of tax avoidance and evasion," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 193, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    16. Antonio Abatemarco & Roberto Dell’Anno, 2020. "Fiscal illusion and progressive taxation with retrospective voting," Economic and Political Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 246-273, April.
    17. Anna P. Kireenko & Ekaterina N. Nevzorova & Alena F. Kireyeva & Alena S. Filippovich & Ekaterina S. Khoroshavina, 2018. "Lab experiment to investigate tax compliance: the case of future taxpayers' behavior in Russia and Belarus," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 4(3), pages 266-290.
    18. Alm, James & Bernasconi, Michele & Laury, Susan & Lee, Daniel J. & Wallace, Sally, 2017. "Culture, compliance, and confidentiality: Taxpayer behavior in the United States and Italy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 176-196.
    19. Blaufus, Kay & Braune, Matthias & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen & Jacob, Martin, 2015. "Does legality matter? The case of tax avoidance and evasion," Discussion Papers 2015/23, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    20. Kay Blaufus & Jonathan Bob & Philipp E. Otto & Nadja Wolf, 2017. "The Effect of Tax Privacy on Tax Compliance – An Experimental Investigation," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 561-580, July.
    21. Blaufus, Kay & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen & Jacob, Martin & Sünwoldt, Matthias, 2016. "Does legality matter? The case of tax avoidance and evasion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 182-206.
    22. Anthony Baffoe-Bonnie & Christopher T. Bastian & Dale J. Menkhaus & Owen R. Phillips, 2021. "Stacking Subsidies in Factor Markets: Evidence from Market Experiments," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-26, December.
    23. Fochmann, Martin & Müller, Nadja & Overesch, Michael, 2018. "Less cheating? The effects of prefilled forms on compliance behavior," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 227, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    24. García-Gallego, Aurora & Georgantzis, Nikos & Jaber-López, Tarek & Michailidou, Georgia, 2020. "Audience effects and other-regarding preferences against corruption: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 159-173.
    25. Melanie Schröder & Norma Burow, 2016. "Couple's Labor Supply, Taxes, and the Division of Housework in a Gender-Neutral Lab," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1593, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • H0 - Public Economics - - General
    • H3 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ntj:journl:v:63:y:2010:i:4:p:635-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: The University of Chicago Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ntanet.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.