IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/31270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Institutions Affect Outcomes in Laboratory Tradable Fishing Allowance Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Anderson, Christopher M.

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to illustrate that economic institutions matter, i.e., that different rules of trade present different incentives for bidding, asking, and trading in new markets, and that these different incentives lead to different price discovery patterns, which yield materially different outcomes. In a laboratory tradable fishing allowance system, when trade takes place through a double auction, which parallels an institution common in extant tradable allowance systems, markets are characterized by high volatility, and equilibrium does not obtain. However, when only leases, and not permanent trades, are permitted in the early periods, volatility is significantly reduced and equilibrium obtains. This dependence of equilibration and outcomes on institutions implies policy-oriented economists must consider institutions in designing new market-based management systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Anderson, Christopher M., 2004. "How Institutions Affect Outcomes in Laboratory Tradable Fishing Allowance Systems," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:31270
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.31270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/31270/files/33020193.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.31270?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Vernon L, 1976. "Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 274-279, May.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    2. Kenta Tanaka & Keisaku Higashida & Shunsuke Managi, 2014. "A laboratory assessment of the choice of vessel size under individual transferable quota regimes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(3), pages 353-373, July.
    3. Anderson, Christopher M. & Sutinen, Jon G., 2006. "The effect of initial lease periods on price discovery in laboratory tradable fishing allowance markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 164-180, October.
    4. Keisaku Higashida & Kenta Tanaka & Shunsuke Managi, 2011. "Is the behavior of fishers rational under Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) regimes? An Experimental Approach," Discussion Paper Series 73, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Aug 2011.

    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. Tian, Ye & Chiu, Yi-Chang & Sun, Jian, 2019. "Understanding behavioral effects of tradable mobility credit scheme: An experimental economics approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Sven Grüner & Mira Lehberger & Norbert Hirschauer & Oliver Mußhoff, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(3), pages 471-504, July.
    3. Franziska Voelckner, 2006. "An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 137-149, April.
    4. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    5. Jan Sauermann & André Kaiser, 2010. "Taking Others into Account: Self‐Interest and Fairness in Majority Decision Making," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 667-685, July.
    6. Petty, Jeffrey S. & Gruber, Marc, 2011. ""In pursuit of the real deal": A longitudinal study of VC decision making," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 172-188, March.
    7. Palma, Marco A. & Ness, Meghan L. & Anderson, David P., 2015. "Buying More than Taste? A Latent Class Analysis of Health and Prestige Determinants of Healthy Food," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202566, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Amy Moore & Michael Taylor, 2007. "Experimental Economics Research: Is there an alternative to having huge research budgets?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(4), pages 1-6.
    9. Jason Shachat & Zhenxuan Zhang, 2017. "The Hayek Hypothesis and Long‐run Competitive Equilibrium: An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(599), pages 199-228, February.
    10. Kenneth Oliven & Thomas A. Rietz, 2004. "Suckers Are Born but Markets Are Made: Individual Rationality, Arbitrage, and Market Efficiency on an Electronic Futures Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 336-351, March.
    11. Marsden, James R. & Mathiyalakan, Sathasivam, 2003. "An investigation of changes in attitude over time of GDSS groups under unanimity and majority decision rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(3), pages 693-712, March.
    12. Andrea Morone & Francesco Nemore & Simone Nuzzo, 2018. "Experimental evidence on tax salience and tax incidence," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(4), pages 582-612, August.
    13. Gale, John & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Samuelson, Larry, 1995. "Learning to be imperfect: The ultimatum game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 56-90.
    14. Ravi Bapna & Chrysanthos Dellarocas & Sarah Rice, 2010. "Vertically Differentiated Simultaneous Vickrey Auctions: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(7), pages 1074-1092, July.
    15. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Palma, Marco & Feldman, Paul, 2024. "Incentives and Payment Mechanisms in Preference Elicitation," MPRA Paper 120898, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Edi Karni & Tim Salmon & Barry Sopher, 2008. "Individual sense of fairness: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(2), pages 174-189, June.
    17. Georg ERBER, 2010. "The Problem Of Money Illusion In Economics," Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova, vol. 5(3(13)/Fal), pages 196-216.
    18. Timm Teubner & Sonia Camacho, 2023. "Facing Reciprocity: How Photos and Avatars Promote Interaction in Micro-communities," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 435-467, April.
    19. Back, Camila & Morana, Stefan & Spann, Martin, 2023. "When do robo-advisors make us better investors? The impact of social design elements on investor behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    20. Matthias Greiff & Henrik Egbert, 2016. "A Survey of the Empirical Evidence on PWYW Pricing," Bulgarian Economic Papers bep-2016-02, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Sofia University St Kliment Ohridski - Bulgaria // Center for Economic Theories and Policies at Sofia University St Kliment Ohridski, revised Jan 2016.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:arerjl:31270. 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/nareaea.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.