IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eaiere/v18y2021i1d10.1007_s40844-020-00192-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An experimental study on voluntary vs. compulsory provision of public goods under the vote-with-feet mechanism

Author

Listed:
  • Hui-Chun Peng

    (National Taipei University)

Abstract

This paper conducts laboratory experiments to investigate how the individuals with heterogeneous income levels endogenously select the institution in public good provision in a Tiebout-like environment. According to the experimental results, I find that heterogeneous individuals have different choices of contribution institutions. High-income individuals tend to participate in the voluntary contribution institution, but low-income individuals tend to choose the compulsory one. I also find that most high-income individuals in the voluntary contribution institution try to free ride on others. Therefore, although the vote-with-feet mechanism helps to sort heterogeneous individuals in different contribution institutions, it may not enhance the cooperation among the individuals in the voluntary contribution community.

Suggested Citation

  • Hui-Chun Peng, 2021. "An experimental study on voluntary vs. compulsory provision of public goods under the vote-with-feet mechanism," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eaiere:v:18:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40844-020-00192-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40844-020-00192-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40844-020-00192-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40844-020-00192-z?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Kosfeld & Akira Okada & Arno Riedl, 2009. "Institution Formation in Public Goods Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1335-1355, September.
    2. Cherry, Todd L. & Kroll, Stephan & Shogren, Jason F., 2005. "The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 357-365, July.
    3. Gürerk, Özgür & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Rockenbach, Bettina, 2014. "On cooperation in open communities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 220-230.
    4. Isaac, R Mark & Walker, James M, 1988. "Communication and Free-Riding Behavior: The Voluntary Contribution Mechanism," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(4), pages 585-608, October.
    5. Karl-Martin Ehrhart & Claudia Keser, 1999. "Mobility and Cooperation: On the Run," CIRANO Working Papers 99s-24, CIRANO.
    6. Roger Hewett & Charles A. Holt & Georgia Kosmopoulou & Christine Kymn & Cheryl X. Long & Shabnam Mousavi & Sudipta Sarangi, 2005. "A Classroom Exercise: Voting by Ballots and Feet," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(1), pages 253-263, July.
    7. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Randall P. Walsh, 2008. "Do People Vote with Their Feet? An Empirical Test of Tiebout," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 843-863, June.
    8. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    9. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    10. Alessandro Innocenti & Chiara Rapallini, 2011. "Voting by Ballots and Feet in the Laboratory," Giornale degli Economisti, GDE (Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia), Bocconi University, vol. 70(1), pages 3-24, January.
    11. Paul W. Rhode & Koleman S. Strumpf, 2003. "Assessing the Importance of Tiebout Sorting: Local Heterogeneity from 1850 to 1990," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1648-1677, December.
    12. Andrea Robbett, 2015. "Voting with hands and feet: the requirements for optimal group formation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 522-541, September.
    13. T. K. Ahn & R. Mark Isaac & Timothy C. Salmon, 2008. "Endogenous Group Formation," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(2), pages 171-194, April.
    14. Ehrhart, Karl-Martin & Keser, Claudia, 1999. "Mobility and cooperation: on the run," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 99-69, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    15. Andrea Robbett, 2014. "Local Institutions and the Dynamics of Community Sorting," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 136-156, August.
    16. Buckley, Edward & Croson, Rachel, 2006. "Income and wealth heterogeneity in the voluntary provision of linear public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(4-5), pages 935-955, May.
    17. Ahn, T.K. & Isaac, R. Mark & Salmon, Timothy C., 2009. "Coming and going: Experiments on endogenous group sizes for excludable public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 336-351, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gürerk, Özgür & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Rockenbach, Bettina, 2014. "On cooperation in open communities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 220-230.
    2. Khadjavi, Menusch & Tjaden, Jasper D., 2018. "Setting the bar - an experimental investigation of immigration requirements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 160-169.
    3. Andrea Robbett, 2016. "Community dynamics in the lab," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(3), pages 543-568, March.
    4. R. Mark Isaac & Douglas A. Norton & Svetlana Pevnitskaya, 2019. "A new experimental mechanism to investigate polarized demands for public goods: the effects of censoring," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(3), pages 585-609, September.
    5. Mittlaender, Sergio, 2020. "The price of exclusion, and the value of inclusive policies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 371-383.
    6. Anabela Botelho & Glenn W. Harrison & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Don Ross & Elisabet E. Rutström, 2022. "Endogenous choice of institutional punishment mechanisms to promote social cooperation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(3), pages 309-335, June.
    7. Guido, Andrea & Robbett, Andrea & Romaniuc, Rustam, 2019. "Group formation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A survey and meta-analytic evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 192-209.
    8. Brütt, Katharina & Schram, Arthur & Sonnemans, Joep, 2020. "Endogenous group formation and responsibility diffusion: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-31.
    9. Daniele Nosenzo & Fabio Tufano, 2015. "Entry or Exit? The Effect of Voluntary Participation on Cooperation," Discussion Papers 2015-20, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    10. Boris Leeuwen & Abhijit Ramalingam & David Rojo Arjona & Arthur Schram, 2019. "Centrality and cooperation in networks," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 178-196, March.
    11. Charness, Gary & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2014. "Starting small toward voluntary formation of efficient large groups in public goods provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 119-132.
    12. Herbst, Luisa & Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2015. "Endogenous group formation in experimental contests," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 163-189.
    13. Ernst Fehr & Tony Williams, 2017. "Social norms, endogenous sorting and the culture of cooperation," ECON - Working Papers 267, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Apr 2018.
    14. Fehr, Ernst & Williams, Tony, 2017. "Creating an Efficient Culture of Cooperation," IZA Discussion Papers 11131, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Serdarevic, Nina & Strømland, Eirik & Tjøtta, Sigve, 2021. "It pays to be nice: The benefits of cooperating in markets," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    16. Nosenzo, Daniele & Tufano, Fabio, 2017. "The effect of voluntary participation on cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 307-319.
    17. Haruvy, Ernan & Li, Sherry Xin & McCabe, Kevin & Twieg, Peter, 2017. "Communication and visibility in public goods provision," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 276-296.
    18. Ananish Chaudhuri, 2011. "Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(1), pages 47-83, March.
    19. Andreas Löschel & Dirk Rübbelke, 2014. "On the Voluntary Provision of International Public Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(322), pages 195-204, April.
    20. Anke Gerber & Andreas Nicklisch & Stefan Voigt, 2013. "Strategic Choices for Redistribution and the Veil of Ignorance: Theory and Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 4423, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Compulsory contribution; Voluntary contribution; Vote-with-feet mechanism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:spr:eaiere:v:18:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s40844-020-00192-z. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.