Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Understanding Social Impact Bonds and Their Alternatives: An Experimental Investigation

Contents:

Author Info

  • Jade Wong

    (Centre for Social Impact, Australian School of Business, the University of New South Wales)

  • Andreas Ortman

    ()
    (School of Economics, Australian School of Business, the University of New South Wales)

  • Alberto Motta

    (School of Economics, Australian School of Business, the University of New South Wales)

  • Le Zhang

    (School of Banking and Finance, Australian School of Business, the University of New South Wales)

Registered author(s):

Abstract

Policy-makers world-wide have proposed a new contract – the “social impact bond” (SIB) – which they claim can allay the underperformance and underfunding afflicting not-for-profit sectors, by tying the private returns of (social) investors to the success of social programs (Bolton 2010; Bolton & Savell 2010; Mulgan et al. 2010a,b; Liebman 2011; Tierney & Fleishman 2011; Von Glahn & Whistler 2011). Given the high hopes governments on various levels in England, Australia, and New York have pinned on this contract format, the considerable amount of money that has recently been poured into this emerging market (e.g., http://www.bigsocietycapital.com/), and the fact that serious are program evaluations cannot be expected any time soon (Disley et al. 2011; see also McKay 2013 and Pratt 2013), we test this new contract by way of experimental methods. We report an investigation of how SIBs perform in a first-best world, where investors are rational and able to obtain hard information about not-for-profits’ performance. To this end, we use a principal-agent multi-tasking framework to compare SIBs to inputs-based (IBs) and performance-based (PBs) contracts, which represent the most commonly used contracts governments and not-for-profits write. IBs contain a piece-rate mechanism, PBs contain a non-binding bonus mechanism, and SIBs contain a mechanism that, due to the presence of an investor, offers full enforceability. Although SIBs can perfectly enforce good behavior, they also require the principal (i.e. government) to relinquish control over the agent’s (i.e. not-for-profit’s) payoff to a self-regarding investor, which prevents the principal and agent from being reciprocal. In spite of these drawbacks, in our experiment SIBs outperformed IBs and PBs. We therefore conclude that, at least in our laboratory test-bed, SIBs can indeed allay underperformance and therefore possibly underfunding of not-for-profits.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://research.economics.unsw.edu.au/RePEc/papers/2013-21.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by School of Economics, The University of New South Wales in its series Discussion Papers with number 2013-21.

as in new window
Length: 46 pages
Date of creation: Sep 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:swe:wpaper:2013-21

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Australian School of Business Building, Sydney 2052
Phone: (+61)-2-9385-3380
Fax: +61)-2- 9313- 6337
Email:
Web page: http://www.economics.unsw.edu.au/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: social impact bonds; principal-agent multi-tasking framework; performance-based contracts; inputs-based contracts; social finance;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Kocher, Martin & Matthias Sutter, 2003. "Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making procedure in gift-exchange experiments," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2003 125, Royal Economic Society.
  2. Wendelin Schnedler & Radovan Vadovic, 2011. "Legitimacy of Control," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 985-1009, December.
  3. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory Of Fairness, Competition, And Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868, August.
  4. Guillaume Fréchette, 2012. "Session-effects in the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 485-498, September.
  5. Andreas Ortmann & Ralph Hertwig, 2001. "The Costs of Deception: Evidence From Psychology," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp191, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economic Institute, Prague.
  6. repec:kap:expeco:v:5:y:2002:i:2:p:91-110 is not listed on IDEAS
  7. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences With Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869, August.
  8. Fehr, Ernst & Klein, Alexander & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2007. "Fairness and contract design," Munich Reprints in Economics 20618, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  9. Uri Gneezy & John List, 2006. "Putting behavioral economics to work: Testing for gift exchange in labor markets using field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00259, The Field Experiments Website.
  10. Luhan, W.J. & Kocher, Martin G. & Sutter, Matthias, 2009. "Group polarization in the team dictator game reconsidered," Munich Reprints in Economics 18216, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  11. Plott, Charles R, 1986. "Rational Choice in Experimental Markets," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages S301-27, October.
  12. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2004. "Fairness and Incentives in a Multi-Task Principal-Agent Model," Discussion Papers in Economics 335, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  13. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
  14. Lana Friesen & Lata Gangadharan, 2011. "Designing Self-Reporting Regimes to Encourage Truth Telling: An Experimental Study," Discussion Papers Series 426, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
  15. Friesen, Lana & Gangadharan, Lata, 2012. "Individual level evidence of dishonesty and the gender effect," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 624-626.
  16. John List, 2006. "The behavioralist meets the market: Measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions," Natural Field Experiments 00300, The Field Experiments Website.
  17. Edward L. Glaeser, 2003. "Introduction to "The Governance of Not-for-Profit Organizations"," NBER Chapters, in: The Governance of Not-for-Profit Organizations, pages 1-44 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  18. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
  19. Georg Kirchsteiger & Ernst Fehr & Arno Riedl, 1993. "Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing? An Experimental Investigation," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/5927, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  20. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
  21. Edward L. Glaeser, 2003. "The Governance of Not-for-Profit Organizations," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number glae03-1.
  22. Tirole, Jean, 1986. "Hierarchies and Bureaucracies: On the Role of Collusion in Organizations," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 181-214, Fall.
  23. Burcay Erus & Burton Weisbrod, 2003. "Objective Functions and Compensation Structures in Nonprofit and For-Profit Organizations. Evidence from the “Mixed” Hospital Industry," NBER Chapters, in: The Governance of Not-for-Profit Organizations, pages 117-142 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Jade Wong & Andreas Ortmann, 2014. "On Uneven Expected Earnings in the Lab," Discussion Papers 2014-07, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.

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:swe:wpaper:2013-21. 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: (Gabriele Gratton).

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.