Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Privacy, Publicity, and Choice

Contents:

Author Info

  • Andrew F. Daughety

    ()
    (Department of Economics and Law School, Vanderbilt University)

  • Jennifer F. Reinganum

    ()
    (Department of Economics and Law School, Vanderbilt University)

Abstract

We develop and explore a new model of the economics of privacy. Previous work has focused on "privacy of type," wherein an agent privately knows an immutable characteristic. We consider "privacy of action," wherein privacy means that an agent's choice of action is unobservable to others. To show how a policy of privacy can be socially optimal, we assume that an agent derives utility from an action he takes, from the aggregate of all agents' actions, and from other agents' perceptions of the agent's type (that are based on his action). If his action is observable, then he distorts it (relative to his full-information optimal action) so as to enhance the perceptions that others have of him. This contributes to aggregate welfare through increasing the public good, but the disutility associated with the distortion of agents' actions is also a social cost. If his action is unobservable, then he can take his full-information optimal action and still be "pooled" with other types. When the disutility of distortion is high relative to the marginal utility of the public good, a policy of privacy is optimal. We also consider a policy of waivable privacy, and find that equilibria exist in which some, but not all, types waive privacy. More significantly, if policies of privacy or publicity are costlessly enforceable, then a policy of waivable privacy is never socially preferred. Finally, we consider a number of examples (some of which involve a public bad and/or social disapproval): open-source software development; charitable giving; recycling; consumption of health services; DNA dragnets; student rankings; constraints on information disclosure at trial; electricity and water usage during periods of voluntary rationing; shaming of speeders; and the use of earmarks by Congress.

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://www.accessecon.com/pubs/VUECON/vu08-w09.pdf
File Function: First version, 2008
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Vanderbilt University Department of Economics in its series Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers with number 0809.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: May 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:van:wpaper:0809

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/wparchive/index.html

Related research

Keywords: Privacy; public goods; disclosure; signaling; esteem;

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. Daughety, A. & Reinganum, J., 1991. "Keeping Society in the Dark : On the Admissibility of Pretrial Nogotiations as Evidence in Court," Working Papers 91-24, University of Iowa, Department of Economics.
  2. Alessandro Acquisti & Hal R. Varian, 2002. "Contidioning Prices on Purchase History," Microeconomics 0210001, EconWPA.
  3. Linardi, Sera & McConnell, Margaret A., 2008. "Volunteering and image concerns," Working Papers 1282, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  4. Calzolari, Giacomo & Pavan, Alessandro, 2006. "On the optimality of privacy in sequential contracting," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 168-204, September.
  5. Paul R. Milgrom, 1979. "Good Nevs and Bad News: Representation Theorems and Applications," Discussion Papers 407R, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  6. Curtis R. Taylor, 2004. "Consumer Privacy and the Market for Customer Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(4), pages 631-650, Winter.
  7. Harbaugh, William T., 1998. "What do donations buy?: A model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 269-284, February.
  8. Romano, Richard & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2001. "Why charities announce donations: a positive perspective," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 423-447, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

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:van:wpaper:0809. 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: (John P. Conley).

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.