Evaluating coasean bargaining experiments with meta-analysis
While the Coase Theorem has been a touchstone for understanding bargaining behavior, it has also been criticized for relying on unrealistic assumptions. In response, a line of experimental research analyzes bargaining behavior in laboratory settings. This paper uses meta-analysis to evaluate the Coasean bargaining literature by modeling the probability of an efficient bargain as a function of: (1) measures of transaction costs and related variables, and (2) measures of the social dimensions of a bargain. Results suggest that efficient solutions are more likely when explicit transaction costs do not exist, in the absence of a binding time limit, and when participants have perfect information on payoff schedules. Social dimension variables are found to have the potential to affect bargaining outcomes and are an important avenue for further research.
Volume (Year): 3 (2007)
Issue (Month): 68 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| |
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.:
- T. D. Stanley, 2001. "Wheat from Chaff: Meta-analysis as Quantitative Literature Review," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 131-150, Summer.
- Todd L. Cherry & Jason F. Shogren, 2001.
"Costly Coasean Bargaining and Property Right Security,"
01-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- Todd Cherry & Jason Shogren, 2005. "Costly Coasean Bargaining and Property Right Security," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(3), pages 349-367, 07.
- Hoffman, Elizabeth & Spitzer, Matthew L, 1982.
"The Coase Theorem: Some Experimental Tests,"
Journal of Law and Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 73-98, April.
- Messer, Kent D. & Zarghamee, Homa & Kaiser, Harry M. & Schulze, William D., 2007. "New hope for the voluntary contributions mechanism: The effects of context," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(9), pages 1783-1799, September.
- Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Coasean bargaining with symmetric delay costs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 309-326, December.
- Prudencio, Yves Coffi, 1982. "The voluntary approach to externality problems: An experimental test," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 213-228, September.
- King, Ronald R., 1994. "An experimental investigation of transaction costs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 391-409, December.
- Shogren, Jason F., 1989.
"Fairness in bargaining requires a context : An experimental examination of loyalty,"
Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 319-323, December.
- Shogren, Jason F., 1989. "Fairness in Bargaining Requires a Context: An Experimental Examination of Loyalty," Staff General Research Papers 293, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Schwab, Stewart, 1988. "A Coasean Experiment on Contract Presumptions," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(2), pages 237-68, June.
- Rhoads, Thomas A & Shogren, Jason F, 2003. "Regulation through Collaboration: Final Authority and Information Symmetry in Environmental Coasean Bargaining," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 63-89, July.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-48, December.
- Rosenberger, Randall S. & Loomis, John B., 2000. "Panel Stratification In Meta-Analysis Of Economic Studies: An Investigation Of Its Effects In The Recreation Valuation Literature," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(03), December.
- Usher, Dan, 1998. "The Coase theorem is tautological, incoherent or wrong," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 3-11, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-07c90007. 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.