IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v1y2010i2p89-102d8056.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Equity versus Efficiency? Evidence from Three-Person Generosity Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Werner Güth

    () (Strategic Interaction Group, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Kahlaische Straße 10, 07745 Jena, Germany)

  • Kerstin Pull

    (Human Resource Management and Organization, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Nauklerstraße 47, 72074 Tübingen, Germany)

  • Manfred Stadler

    (Economic Theory, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Mohlstraße 36, 72074 Tübingen, Germany)

  • Agnes Stribeck

    (Human Resource Management and Organization, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Nauklerstraße 47, 72074 Tübingen, Germany)

Abstract

In two-person generosity games, the proposer’s agreement payoff is exogenously given, whereas that of the responder is endogenously determined by the proposer’s choice of the pie size. In three-person generosity games, equal agreement payoffs for two of the players are either exogenously excluded or imposed. We predict that the latter crowds out - or at least weakens - efficiency seeking. Our treatments rely on a 2x3 factorial design, differing in whether the responder or the third (dummy) player is the residual claimant and whether the proposer’s agreement payoff is larger, equal, or smaller than the other exogenously given agreement payoff.

Suggested Citation

  • Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler & Agnes Stribeck, 2010. "Equity versus Efficiency? Evidence from Three-Person Generosity Experiments," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 1(2), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:1:y:2010:i:2:p:89-102:d:8056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/1/2/89/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/1/2/89/
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    2. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2009. "Making the World a better Place: Experimental evidence from the generosity Game," Jena Economic Research Papers 2009-071, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    3. Bolton, Gary E, 1991. "A Comparative Model of Bargaining: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1096-1136, December.
    4. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    5. Gantner, Anita & Guth, Werner & Konigstein, Manfred, 2001. "Equitable choices in bargaining games with joint production," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 209-225, October.
    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. Agnes Bäker & Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler, 2012. "On the Context-Dependency of Inequality Aversion - Experimental Evidence and a Stylized Model -," Jena Economic Research Papers 2012-023, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Bäker, Agnes & Güth, Werner & Pull, Kerstin & Stadler, Manfred, 2015. "Three-person envy games: Experimental evidence and a stylized model," University of Tuebingen Working Papers in Economics and Finance 79, University of Tuebingen, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences.
    3. Agathe Rouaix & Charles Figuières & Marc Willinger, 2015. "The trade-off between welfare and equality in a public good experiment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(3), pages 601-623, October.
    4. Agnes Bäker & Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler, 2014. "Entitlement and the efficiency-equality trade-off: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 225-240, February.
    5. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    6. Bäker, Agnes & Güth, Werner & Pull, Kerstin & Stadler, Manfred, 2015. "The willingness to pay for partial vs. universal equality," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 55-61.
    7. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim & Sağlam, Çağrı, 2013. "A minimally altruistic refinement of Nash equilibrium," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 422-430.
    8. Werner Güth, 2011. "Bargaining and Negotiations What should experimentalists explore more thoroughly?," Jena Economic Research Papers 2011-012, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    9. Werner Güth & M. Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2012. "An experimental study of the generosity game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 51-63, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    generosity game; equity; efficiency; experiment;

    JEL classification:

    • C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games

    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:gam:jgames:v:1:y:2010:i:2:p:89-102:d:8056. 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: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: http://www.mdpi.com/ .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.