Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Provision versus Appropriation in Symmetric and Asymmetric Social Dilemmas

Contents:

Author Info

  • James C. Cox

    ()
    (Experimental Economics Center and Department of Economics, 14 Marietta Street NW, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA; corresponding author.)

  • Elinor Ostrom

    (Founder of the Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA, and the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. Deceased.)

  • Vjollca Sadiraj

    ()
    (Experimental Economics Center and Department of Economics, 14 Marietta Street NW, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA;)

  • James M. Walker

    ()
    (The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Department of Economics, Indiana University, Wylie Hall 105, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA;)

Abstract

Social dilemmas characterize decision environments in which individuals' exclusive pursuit of their own material self-interest can produce inefficient allocations. Social dilemmas are most commonly studied in provision games, such as public goods games and trust games, in which the social dilemma can be manifested in foregone opportunities to create surplus. Appropriation games are sometimes used to study social dilemmas that can be manifested in destruction of surplus, as is typical in common-pool resource extraction games. A central question is whether social dilemmas are more serious for inhibiting creation of surplus or in promoting its destruction. This question is addressed in this study with an experiment involving three pairs of payoff-equivalent provision and appropriation games. Some game pairs are symmetric, whereas others involve asymmetric power relationships. We find that play of symmetric provision and appropriation games produces comparable efficiency. In contrast, power asymmetry leads to significantly lower efficiency in an appropriation game than in a payoff-equivalent provision game. This outcome can be rationalized by reciprocal preference theory but not by models of unconditional social preferences. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4284/0038-4038-2012.186

Download Info

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Southern Economic Association in its journal Southern Economic Journal.

Volume (Year): 79 (2013)
Issue (Month): 3 (January)
Pages: 496-512

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:sej:ancoec:v:79:3:y:2013:p:496-512

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.southerneconomic.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. David L. Dickinson & Daivd Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "Norm Enforcement in Social Dilemmas: An Experiment with Police Commissioners," Working Papers, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University 14-02, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
  2. Sophie Clot & Gilles Grolleau & Lisette Ibanez, 2014. "An experimental analysis from a taking game in Madagascar," Working Papers, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier 14-02, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jan 2014.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sej:ancoec:v:79:3:y:2013:p:496-512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Laura Razzolini).

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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