IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03830175.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Several liability with sequential care: an experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Julien Jacob

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - AgroParisTech - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Eve-Angéline Lambert

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - AgroParisTech - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Emmanuel Peterle

    (CRESE - Centre de REcherches sur les Stratégies Economiques (UR 3190) - UFC - Université de Franche-Comté - UBFC - Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté [COMUE])

Abstract

By a laboratory experiment, we investigate the incentives of potential tortfeasors to make investments in order to reduce the probability of a given harm occurring. In our experiment, paired players make their decisions sequentially, i.e., a la Stackelberg and in case of a harm, they share liability, either symmetrically or asymmetrically. We vary their level of endowments so that one can become insolvent in case of harm, and show that subjects do not behave as predicted, due to considerations such as inequity aversion or reciprocity. We find that the first-acting tortfeasor does not exploit their advantage fully and invests much more than predicted. Our results also show that the second-acting tortfeasor acts reciprocally with the other, rather than rationally opting for their best response. Finally, we show that asymmetric liability apportionment may restore the incentives to invest for the first tortfeasor, and that insolvency of the second one pushes the first to overinvest in order to avoid harm.

Suggested Citation

  • Julien Jacob & Eve-Angéline Lambert & Emmanuel Peterle, 2022. "Several liability with sequential care: an experiment," Post-Print hal-03830175, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03830175
    DOI: 10.1007/s10657-022-09740-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below 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.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guth, Werner & Levati, M. Vittoria & Sutter, Matthias & van der Heijden, Eline, 2007. "Leading by example with and without exclusion power in voluntary contribution experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(5-6), pages 1023-1042, June.
    2. Grady, Mark F, 1990. "Multiple Tortfeasors and the Economy of Prevention," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 653-678, June.
    3. Alexander W. Cappelen & Bjørn-Atle Reme & Erik Ø. Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2016. "Leadership and Incentives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1944-1953, July.
    4. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    5. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    6. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    7. Vera Angelova & Olivier Armantier & Giuseppe Attanasi & Yolande Hiriart, 2014. "Relative performance of liability rules: experimental evidence," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 531-556, December.
    8. M. Vittoria Levati & Matthias Sutter & Eline van der Heijden, 2007. "Leading by Example in a Public Goods Experiment with Heterogeneity and Incomplete Information," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(5), pages 793-818, October.
    9. Fischbacher, Urs & Gachter, Simon & Fehr, Ernst, 2001. "Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 397-404, June.
    10. Kornhauser, Lewis A. & Schotter, Andrew, 1990. "An Experimental Study Of Two-Actor Accidents," Working Papers 90-13, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    11. Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2001. "Stackelberg Beats Cournot: On Collusion and Efficiency in Experimental Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(474), pages 749-765, October.
    12. Friehe, Tim, 2009. "Sequential torts and bilateral harm," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 161-168, June.
    13. Rivas, M. Fernanda & Sutter, Matthias, 2011. "The benefits of voluntary leadership in experimental public goods games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 176-178, August.
    14. Deffains, Bruno & Espinosa, Romain & Fluet, Claude, 2019. "Laws and norms: Experimental evidence with liability rules," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    15. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2014. "Cumulative Harm and Resilient Liability Rules for Product Markets," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 371-400.
    16. 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.
    17. Julien Jacob & Eve-Angéline Lambert & Mathieu Lefebvre & Sarah Driessche, 2023. "Information disclosure under liability: an experiment on public bads," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(1), pages 155-197, July.
    18. Steffen Huck & Brian Wallace, 2002. "Reciprocal strategies and aspiration levels in a Cournot-Stackelberg experiment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(3), pages 1-7.
    19. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Müller, Wieland & Tan, Fangfang, 2013. "Who acts more like a game theorist? Group and individual play in a sequential market game and the effect of the time horizon," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 658-674.
    21. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2002:i:3:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Fehr, Ernst & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Riedl, Arno, 1998. "Gift exchange and reciprocity in competitive experimental markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-34, January.
    23. Dehez, Pierre & Ferey, Samuel, 2013. "How to share joint liability: A cooperative game approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 44-50.
    24. Winter, Harold, 1994. "Sequential Torts with imperfect information," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 35-40, March.
    25. Kornhauser, Lewis & Schotter, Andrew, 1990. "An Experimental Study of Single-Actor Accidents," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 203-233, January.
    26. Kornhauser, Lewis A & Revesz, Richard L, 1991. "Sequential Decisions by a Single Tortfeasor," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 363-380, June.
    27. Young Robert & Faure Michael & Fenn Paul, 2007. "Multiple Tortfeasors: An Economic Analysis," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 111-132, May.
    28. Samuel Ferey & Pierre Dehez, 2016. "Multiple Causation, Apportionment, and the Shapley Value," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(1), pages 143-171.
    29. Morgan, John & Vardy, Felix, 2004. "An experimental study of commitment in Stackelberg games with observation costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 401-423, November.
    30. Kornhauser, Lewis A & Revesz, Richard L, 1994. "Multidefendant Settlements: The Impact of Joint and Several Liability," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 41-76, January.
    31. Easterbrook, Frank H & Landes, William M & Posner, Richard A, 1980. "Contribution among Antitrust Defendants: A Legal and Economic Analysis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(2), pages 331-370, October.
    32. Haigner, Stefan D. & Wakolbinger, Florian, 2010. "To lead or not to lead: Endogenous sequencing in public goods games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 93-95, July.
    33. Shavell, S., 1986. "The judgment proof problem," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 45-58, June.
    34. Tom H. Tietenberg, 1989. "Indivisible Toxic Torts: The Economics of Joint and Several Liability," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(4), pages 305-319.
    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 & Lauer, Thomas & Scheuermann, Martin, 2018. "Leadership with individual rewards and punishments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 57-69.
    2. Karakostas, Alexandros & Kocher, Martin & Matzat, Dominik & Rau, Holger A. & Riewe, Gerhard, 2021. "The team allocator game: Allocation power in public goods games," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 419, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    3. Julien Jacob & Eve-Angéline Lambert & Mathieu Lefebvre & Sarah Driessche, 2023. "Information disclosure under liability: an experiment on public bads," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(1), pages 155-197, July.
    4. Eichenseer, Michael & Moser, Johannes, 2018. "Leadership in a Dynamic Public Goods Game: An Experimental Study," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181599, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Heim, Réka & Huber, Jürgen, 2019. "Leading-by-example and third-party punishment: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    6. Luke Boosey & R. Mark Isaac & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Limiting the Leader: Fairness Concerns in Team Production with Leader-Determined Monitoring," Working Papers 21-11, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    7. Drouvelis, Michalis & Pearce, Graeme, 2023. "Leadership under the shadow of the future: Intelligence and strategy choice in infinitely repeated games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    8. Lisa Bruttel & Gerald Eisenkopf & Juri Nithammer, 2024. "Pre-election communication in public good games with endogenous leaders," CEPA Discussion Papers 73, Center for Economic Policy Analysis.
    9. Drouvelis, Michalis & Nosenzo, Daniele & Sefton, Martin, 2017. "Team incentives and leadership," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 173-185.
    10. Gerrit Frackenpohl & Adrian Hillenbrand & Sebastian Kube, 2016. "Leadership effectiveness and institutional frames," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 842-863, December.
    11. Ju, Ying & Kocher, Martin G., 2020. "Leading by example in a public goods experimentwith benefit heterogeneity," IHS Working Paper Series 25, Institute for Advanced Studies.
    12. Jing Yu & Martin G. Kocher, 2023. "Leading by example in a public goods experiment with benefit heterogeneity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 685-712, October.
    13. Raphaële Préget & Phu Nguyen-Van & Marc Willinger, 2016. "Who are the voluntary leaders? Experimental evidence from a sequential contribution game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 581-599, November.
    14. Eric Langlais & Maxime Charreire, 2020. "Should environment be a concern for competition policy when firms face environmental liability ?," EconomiX Working Papers 2020-25, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    15. Simon Gaechter & Daniele Nosenzo & Elke Renner & Martin Sefton, 2009. "Sequential versus simultaneous contributions to public goods: Experimental evidence," Discussion Papers 2009-07, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    16. Gächter, Simon & Renner, Elke, 2018. "Leaders as role models and ‘belief managers’ in social dilemmas," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 321-334.
    17. Christoph Engel & Lilia Zhurakhovska, 2013. "Do Explicit Reasons Make Legal Intervention More Effective? An Experimental Study," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_16, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Mar 2018.
    18. Drouvelis, Michalis & Nosenzo, Daniele, 2013. "Group identity and leading-by-example," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 414-425.
    19. Astrid Dannenberg, 2015. "Leading by example versus leading by words in voluntary contribution experiments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 71-85, January.
    20. Ibanez, Marcela & Schaffland, Elke, 2018. "Organizational performance with in-group and out-group leaders: An experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-10.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sequential harm; Liability apportionment; Insolvency; Stackelberg game;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior

    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:hal:journl:hal-03830175. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.