IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/idb/wpaper/4576.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lo que se dice del comportamiento social y acciones reveladas: Evidencia de seis ciudades latinoamericanas utilizando muestras representativas

Author

Listed:
  • Hugo Ñopo
  • Alberto Chong
  • Juan Camilo Cardenas

Abstract

En este documento se analiza el vínculo entre lo que la gente dice que prefiere hacer y lo que efectivamente hace. Se vinculan los resultados de los experimentos sobre la confianza y la naturaleza social en seis capitales latinoamericanas con las respuestas obtenidas de encuestas representativas entre los mismos participantes individuales. Los individuos que están más de acuerdo con un conjunto de afirmaciones de naturaleza social están más dispuestos a contribuir y colaborar con el bienestar social de la comunidad, y lo que la gente dice está vinculado con lo que hace. Esto sostiene la idea de que la inclusión de controles subjetivos en el lado izquierdo de una especificación empírica efectivamente contiene información útil.

Suggested Citation

  • Hugo Ñopo & Alberto Chong & Juan Camilo Cardenas, 2008. "Lo que se dice del comportamiento social y acciones reveladas: Evidencia de seis ciudades latinoamericanas utilizando muestras representativas," Research Department Publications 4576, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:idb:wpaper:4576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.iadb.org/research/pub_hits.cfm?pub_id=WP-634&pub_file_name=pubWP-634.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. Mark Isaac & James M. Walker, 1988. "Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(1), pages 179-199.
    2. 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.
    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. Michalis Drouvelis & Julian C. Jamison, 2015. "Selecting public goods institutions: Who likes to punish and reward?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(2), pages 501-534, October.
    2. Choi, S. & Goyal, G. & Moisan, F., 2020. "Large Scale Experiments on Networks: A New Platform with Applications," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2063, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    3. A. Chaudhuri & L. Gangadharan & Pushkar Maitra, 2005. "An Experimental Analysis ofGroup Size and Risk Sharing," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 955, The University of Melbourne.
    4. Belot, Michele & Duch, Raymond & Miller, Luis, 2015. "A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 26-33.
    5. David RivenbarK, 2010. "Experimentally Elicited Beliefs Explain Privacy Behavior," Working Papers 2010-09, University of Central Florida, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2011.
    6. Cárdenas, Juan Camilo & Chong, Alberto & Ñopo, Hugo, 2013. "Stated social behavior and revealed actions: Evidence from six Latin American countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 16-33.
    7. Olli Lappalainen, 2018. "Cooperation and Strategic Complementarity: An Experiment with Two Voluntary Contribution Mechanism Games with Interior Equilibria," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-24, July.
    8. Lata Gangadharan & Veronika Nemes, 2005. "Impact of Risk and Uncertainty in the Provision of Local and Global Environmental Goods : An Experimental Analysis," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 956, The University of Melbourne.
    9. 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.
    10. Tobias Cagala & Ulrich Glogowsky & Veronika Grimm & Johannes Rincke, 2019. "Public Goods Provision with Rent-extracting Administrators," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(620), pages 1593-1617.
    11. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    12. Hugo Ñopo & Alberto Chong & Juan Camilo Cardenas, 2008. "Stated Social Behavior and Revealed Actions: Evidence from Six Latin American Countries Using Representative Samples," Research Department Publications 4575, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    13. Lata Gangadharan & Veronika Nemes, 2009. "Experimental Analysis Of Risk And Uncertainty In Provisioning Private And Public Goods," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 47(1), pages 146-164, January.
    14. Biener, Christian & Eling, Martin & Landmann, Andreas & Pradhan, Shailee, 2018. "Can group incentives alleviate moral hazard? The role of pro-social preferences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 230-249.
    15. Hong, Fuhai & Lim, Wooyoung, 2016. "Voluntary participation in public goods provision with Coasian bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PA), pages 102-119.
    16. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    17. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    18. François Desmoulins-Lebeault & Jean-François Gajewski & Luc Meunier, 2018. "Personality and Risk Aversion," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 472-489.
    19. Robert Gazzale & Julian Jamison & Alexander Karlan & Dean Karlan, 2013. "Ambiguous Solicitation: Ambiguous Prescription," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1002-1011, January.
    20. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.

    More about this item

    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:idb:wpaper:4576. 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: Felipe Herrera Library (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iadbbus.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.