IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi14/187601.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Potenzial Verschiedener Experimenteller Designs Für Die Politik-Folgenabschätzung

Author

Listed:
  • Gruner, Sven
  • Hirschauer, Norbert
  • Mußhoff, Oliver

Abstract

Ökonomische Experimente werden traditionell in einer Laborumgebung durchgeführt. Labor-experimente zeichnen sich durch eine hohe interne Validität aus. Die externe Validität ist aber aufgrund der i.d.R. stilisiert-vereinfachten Experimentierumgebung oft eingeschränkt. In den letzten Jahren wurden experimentelle Studien auch im Agrarbereich zunehmend außerhalb der Laborumgebung mit Hilfe des Internets durchgeführt. Die Zielsetzung des vorliegenden Beitrags besteht darin, ökonomische Experimente zu systematisieren und die Vor- und Nach-teile internetbasierter Experimente zu diskutieren. Im besonderen Fokus steht dabei die Nutz-barkeit von Experimenten für die Politikfolgenabschätzung im Agrarbereich. Die drei zentra-len Ergebnisse lauten: Erstens, durch die Internetnutzung können die mit der Teilnahme am Experiment verbundenen Kosten gegenüber der traditionellen Laborumgebung gesenkt wer-den. Dies gilt sowohl für die direkten Kosten des Experimentators als auch für die Opportuni-tätskosten der Teilnehmer. Zweitens, wenn durch diesen Kostenvorteil Mittel frei werden, entsteht die Chance, gezielt Maßnahmen zur Erhöhung der externen Validität zu ergreifen. Es ist nicht nur leichter, mehr Teilnehmer zu gewinnen und höhere erfolgsabhängige Prämien zu vergeben. Vielmehr lassen sich auch leichter Repräsentanten der sozialen Gruppe (z.B. Landwirte) für die Teilnahme gewinnen, die Gegenstand der Untersuchung ist. Dies ermög-licht ein experimentelles Testen des realen Verhaltens realer Akteure mit realen Folgen, das für die Politikfolgenabschätzung bedeutsam sein kann. Drittens, in der vertrauten Umgebung am eigenen PC Entscheidungen zu treffen, ähnelt dem regulären Entscheidungsumfeld weit mehr als das Laborsetting. Dem letztgenannten Vorteil steht allerdings der Nachteil einer ver-ringerten internen Validität gegenüber. Bei internetbasierten Experimenten lässt sich die Ent-scheidungsumgebung weniger gut kontrollieren. Der Experimentator weiß z.B. nicht, welchen Aufwand die Teilnehmer am Experiment betreiben und mit wem sie kommunizieren.

Suggested Citation

  • Gruner, Sven & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2014. "Potenzial Verschiedener Experimenteller Designs Für Die Politik-Folgenabschätzung," 54th Annual Conference, Goettingen, Germany, September 17-19, 2014 187601, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi14:187601
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.187601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/187601/files/POTENZIAL%20VERSCHIEDENER%20EXPERIMENTELLER%20DESIGNS%20F_R%20DIE%20POLITIKFOLGENABSCH_TZUNG.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.187601?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bohm, Peter, 1972. "Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130.
    2. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Kreps, David M., 1990. "Game Theory and Economic Modelling," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198283812, Decembrie.
    4. Müller, R.J., 2001. "Auctions : the big winner among trading mechanisms for the Internet economy," Research Memorandum 016, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    5. Simon Gachter & Ernst Fehr, 2000. "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 980-994, September.
    6. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-261, April.
    7. Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2000. "Pay Enough or Don't Pay at All," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(3), pages 791-810.
    8. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    9. repec:feb:artefa:0092 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    11. Anderhub, Vital & Muller, Rudolf & Schmidt, Carsten, 2001. "Design and evaluation of an economic experiment via the Internet," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 227-247, October.
    12. Arthur Schram, 2005. "Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 225-237.
    13. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    14. Vital Anderhub & Werner Gäuth & Wieland Mäuller & Martin Strobel, 2000. "An Experimental Analysis of Intertemporal Allocation Behavior," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(2), pages 137-152, October.
    15. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    16. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    17. Vernon L. Smith, 1962. "An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70, pages 111-111.
    18. Loewenstein, George, 1999. "Experimental Economics from the Vantage-Point of Behavioural Economics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 23-34, February.
    19. Peter Bohm, 1972. "Estimating the demand for public goods: An experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00126, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    21. Duersch, Peter & Oechssler, Jörg & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2009. "Incentives for subjects in internet experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 120-122, October.
    22. Martina Björkman & Jakob Svensson, 2009. "Power to the People: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment on Community-Based Monitoring in Uganda," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(2), pages 735-769.
    23. Binswanger, Hans P, 1981. "Attitudes toward Risk: Theoretical Implications of an Experiment in Rural India," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 867-890, December.
    24. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    25. Charness, Gary & Haruvy, Ernan & Sonsino, Doron, 2007. "Social distance and reciprocity: An Internet experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 88-103, May.
    26. Vernon L. Smith, 1965. "Experimental Auction Markets and the Walrasian Hypothesis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73, pages 387-387.
    27. L. E. Fouraker & S. Siegel & D. L. Harnett, 1962. "An Experimental Disposition of Alternative Bilateral Monopoly Models Under Conditions of Price Leadership," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 41-50, February.
    28. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    29. Breustedt, G. & Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Schilizzi, S., 2008. "Ein ökonomisches Auktionsexperiment zur Auswahl der Teilnehmer an Umweltschutzprogrammen," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    30. Roth,Alvin E. (ed.), 1988. "Laboratory Experimentation in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521333924.
    31. Guala,Francesco, 2005. "The Methodology of Experimental Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521618618.
    32. Schade, Christian & Burmeister-Lamp, Katrin, 2009. "Experiments on Entrepreneurial Decision Making: A Different Lens Through Which to Look at Entrepreneurship," Foundations and Trends(R) in Entrepreneurship, now publishers, vol. 5(2), pages 81-134, March.
    33. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    34. Steinhorst, M.P. & Bahrs, E., 2012. "Die Analyse der Rationalität im Verhalten von Stakeholdern des Agribusiness anhand eines Experiments," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.
    35. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    36. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    37. Trenkel, Hermann E., 2005. "Möglichkeiten experimenteller Methoden in der Agrarökonomie," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 40, March.
    38. Oliver Musshoff & Martin Odening & Christian Schade & Syster Christin Maart-Noelck & Serena Sandri, 2013. "Inertia in disinvestment decisions: experimental evidence," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(3), pages 463-485, July.
    39. Gary Burtless, 1995. "The Case for Randomized Field Trials in Economic and Policy Research," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 63-84, Spring.
    40. Alvin E. Roth & Axel Ockenfels, 2000. "Last Minute Bidding and the Rules for Ending Second-Price Auctions: Theory and Evidence from a Natural Experiment on the Internet," NBER Working Papers 7729, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    41. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    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. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Jinkwon Lee, 2007. "Repetition And Financial Incentives In Economics Experiments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 628-681, July.
    3. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    4. List John A., 2007. "Field Experiments: A Bridge between Lab and Naturally Occurring Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-47, April.
    5. Innocenti, Alessandro, 2017. "Virtual reality experiments in economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 71-77.
    6. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    7. Croson, Rachel & Gächter, Simon, 2010. "The science of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 122-131, January.
    8. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    9. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.
    10. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Matter? Evidence from Rural Uganda," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 158146, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    11. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Affect Risk Preference Outcomes? Evidence from Rural Uganda," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    12. Holst, Gesa Sophie & Musshoff, Oliver, 2014. "Policy impact analysis of penalty and reward scenarios to promote flower-ing cover crops using a business simulation game," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182798, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Nicolas Jacquemet & Olivier L’Haridon & Isabelle Vialle, 2014. "Marché du travail, évaluation et économie expérimentale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(1), pages 189-226.
    14. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    15. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    16. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," Artefactual Field Experiments j0001, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    20. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:gewi14:187601. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gewisea.html .

    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.