IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/356469.html

Subsidy Incidence in Privately Negotiated Spot Markets: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Rahman, Mohammad Maksudur
  • Bastian, Christopher T.
  • Ritten, Chian Jones
  • Phillips, Owen R.

Abstract

We use experimental methods to investigate subsidy incidence, the transfer of subsidy payments from intended recipients to other economic agents, in privately negotiated spot markets. Our results show that market outcomes in treatments with a subsidy given to either buyers or sellers are significantly different from both a no-subsidy treatment and the competitive prediction of a 50% subsidy incidence. The disparity in incidence across treatments relative to predicted levels suggests that incidence equivalence does not hold in this market setting. Moreover, we find no statistical difference in market outcomes when benefits are framed as a “subsidy” versus a schedule shift.

Suggested Citation

  • Rahman, Mohammad Maksudur & Bastian, Christopher T. & Ritten, Chian Jones & Phillips, Owen R., . "Subsidy Incidence in Privately Negotiated Spot Markets: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 51(2).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:356469
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.356469
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/356469/files/subsidy-incidence-in-privately-negotiated-spot-markets-experimental-evidence.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.356469?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. Davis, Douglas D. & Holt, Charles a., 1993. "Experimental economics: Methods, problems and promise," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 8(2), pages 179-212.
    2. Rahman, Mohammad Maksudur & Bastian, Christopher T. & Jones Ritten, Chian & Phillips, Owen R., 2019. "Subsidy Incidence in Privately Negotiated Spot Markets: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 219-234, May.
    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. Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2016. "Stipulated Damages as a Rent-Extraction Mechanism: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 235-273, June.
    2. Markus C. Arnold & Eva Ponick, 2006. "Kommunikation im Groves-Mechanismus — Ergebnisse eines Laborexperiments," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 89-120, February.
    3. Bradley J. Ruffle, 2005. "Buyer Countervailing Power: A Survey of Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 0512, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    4. Anauati, María Victoria & Feld, Brian & Galiani, Sebastian & Torrens, Gustavo, 2016. "Collective action: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 36-55.
    5. Röttgers, Dirk, 2016. "Conditional cooperation, context and why strong rules work — A Namibian common-pool resource experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 21-31.
    6. Homburg, Carsten & Scherpereel, Peter, 2008. "How should the cost of joint risk capital be allocated for performance measurement?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 208-227, May.
    7. Sauter, Philipp A. & Mußhoff, Oliver & Möhring, Bernhard & Wilhelm, Stefan, 2016. "Faustmann vs. real options theory – An experimental investigation of foresters’ harvesting decisions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 1-20.
    8. David L. Dickinson & Jill Tiefenthaler, 2002. "What Is Fair? Experimental Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(2), pages 414-428, October.
    9. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. repec:mje:mjejnl:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:25-70 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 17-40.
    12. Tatiana Iwai & Paulo Furquim de Azevedo, 2016. "Economic Incentives or Communication: How Different Are their Effects on Trust," Business and Economics Working Papers 225, Unidade de Negocios e Economia, Insper.
    13. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    14. Bouma, J.A. & Nguyen, Binh & van der Heijden, Eline & Dijk, J.J., 2018. "Analysing Group Contract Design Using a Lab and a Lab-in-the-Field Threshold Public Good Experiment," Discussion Paper 2018-049, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    15. Fairchild, A.M. & van Heck, E. & Kleijnen, J.P.C. & Ribbers, P.M.A., 2002. "Creating alternative electronic trading mechanisms in time-sensitive transaction markets," Other publications TiSEM 3a9c1dad-3e51-40ca-a185-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Cardenas, Juan-Camilo & Ostrom, Elinor, 2004. "What do people bring into the game? Experiments in the field about cooperation in the commons," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 307-326, December.
    17. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    18. Otto, Steven & Poe, Gregory L. & Just, David R., "undated". "Formulating and Testing a New Conservation Auction Mechanism in an Experimental Setting," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258476, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Chris Snijders & Werner Raub, 1998. "Revolution And Risk," Rationality and Society, , vol. 10(4), pages 405-425, November.
    20. Unnevehr, Laurian J. & Villamil, Anne P. & Hasler, Clare, "undated". "Measuring Consumer Demand for Functional Foods and the Impact of Health Labeling Regulation," New Economic Approaches to Consumer Welfare and Nutrition - FAMC 1999 Conference 260291, Food and Agricultural Marketing Consortium (FAMC).
    21. Ferraro Paul J & Vossler Christian A, 2010. "The Source and Significance of Confusion in Public Goods Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, July.

    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:joaaec:356469. 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/saeaaea.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.