IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v14y2021i12p608-d703071.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stacking Subsidies in Factor Markets: Evidence from Market Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony Baffoe-Bonnie

    (Department of Agriculture, Alcorn State University, Lorman, MS 39096, USA)

  • Christopher T. Bastian

    (Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA)

  • Dale J. Menkhaus

    (Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA)

  • Owen R. Phillips

    (Department of Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA)

Abstract

Government policies employ different support programs such as subsidies to reduce risks, increase efficiency in markets, and enhance societal welfare. In markets such as ethanol markets, where multiple agents receive subsidy, it is often difficult to determine whether recipients of these support programs will transfer some of their payments to other agents in the market. In this study, we use laboratory market experiments to understand subsidy incidence in markets where both buyers and sellers receive subsidies, and there are few buyers relative to sellers. Our results show that when subsidizing both sides of the market, framing effects matter, and when markets are buyer concentrated, subsidy distributions generally tend to favor buyers. With a per-unit subsidy of 20 tokens to both sides and an equal number of buyers and sellers in the market, we find that buyers increase their earnings by 13.4% while seller earnings decrease by 16.1%. On a per-schedule basis, buyer earnings in the concentrated market are similar to what we observed in the competitive market.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony Baffoe-Bonnie & Christopher T. Bastian & Dale J. Menkhaus & Owen R. Phillips, 2021. "Stacking Subsidies in Factor Markets: Evidence from Market Experiments," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-26, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:14:y:2021:i:12:p:608-:d:703071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/14/12/608/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/14/12/608/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alm, James, 2010. "Testing Behavioral Public Economics Theories in the Laboratory," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 63(4), pages 635-658, December.
    2. Orley Ashenfelter & Janet Currie & Henry S. Farber & Matthew Spiegel, 1990. "An Experimental Comparison of Dispute Rates in Alternative Arbitration Systems," Working Papers 647, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    3. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2012. "Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-8.
    4. Ashenfelter, Orley, et al, 1992. "An Experimental Comparison of Dispute Rates in Alternative Arbitration Systems," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(6), pages 1407-1433, November.
    5. Ruffle, Bradley J., 2005. "Tax and subsidy incidence equivalence theories: experimental evidence from competitive markets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1519-1542, August.
    6. Graff Zivin, Joshua S. & Perloff, Jeffrey M. (ed.), 2012. "The Intended and Unintended Effects of U.S. Agricultural and Biotechnology Policies," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226988030, October.
    7. Patton, Myles & Kostov, Philip & McErlean, Seamus & Moss, Joan, 2008. "Assessing the influence of direct payments on the rental value of agricultural land," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 397-405, October.
    8. Harry de Gorter & David R. Just, 2010. "The Social Costs and Benefits of Biofuels: The Intersection of Environmental, Energy and Agricultural Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 4-32.
    9. Barrett E. Kirwan, 2009. "The Incidence of U.S. Agricultural Subsidies on Farmland Rental Rates," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 117(1), pages 138-164, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Christopher T. Bastian & Dale J. Menkhaus & Amy M. Nagler & Nicole S. Ballenger, 2008. "Ex Ante Evaluation of Alternative Agricultural Policies in Laboratory Posted Bid Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1208-1215.
    12. Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Jeffrey M. Perloff, 2012. "The Intended and Unintended Effects of US Agricultural and Biotechnology Policies," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number perl10-1, June.
    13. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    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. Kristiana Hansen & Jonathan Kaplan & Stephan Kroll, 2014. "Valuing Options in Water Markets: A Laboratory Investigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(1), pages 59-80, January.
    2. Panchalingam, Thadchaigeni & Jones Ritten, Chian & Shogren, Jason F. & Ehmke, Mariah D. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Parkhurst, Gregory M., 2019. "Adding realism to the Agglomeration Bonus: How endogenous land returns affect habitat fragmentation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    3. James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
    4. Joseph P. Janzen & Nathan P. Hendricks, 2020. "Are Farmers Made Whole by Trade Aid?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 205-226, June.
    5. Jerzy Michalek & Pavel Ciaian & d’Artis Kancs, 2014. "Capitalization of the Single Payment Scheme into Land Value: Generalized Propensity Score Evidence from the European Union," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 260-289.
    6. Gary Bolton & Kevin Breuer & Ben Greiner & Axel Ockenfels, 2023. "Fixing feedback revision rules in online markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 247-256, April.
    7. Chian Jones Ritten & Christopher Bastian & Owen Phillips, 2021. "The relative effectiveness of law enforcement policies aimed at reducing illegal trade: Evidence from laboratory markets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Yakunina, Alla V. & Menkhaus, Dale J. & Phillips, Owen R. & Esipov, Victor E., 2003. "Non-performance risk and transaction costs in laboratory forward and spot markets," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 257-274, June.
    9. Van Herck, Kristine & Vranken, Liesbet, 2011. "Direct payments and rent extraction by land owners: Evidence form New Member States," 122nd Seminar, February 17-18, 2011, Ancona, Italy 99583, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Nathalie Chappe, 2001. "L'analyse économique d'un mode de résolution des litiges : l'arbitrage," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 15(4), pages 187-208.
    11. Owen Phillips & Dale Menkhaus & John Thurow, 2011. "The Small Firm in a Quantity Choosing Game: Some Experimental Evidence," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 38(2), pages 191-207, March.
    12. Card, David & Olson, Craig A, 1995. "Bargaining Power, Strike Durations, and Wage Outcomes: An Analysis of Strikes in the 1880s," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 32-61, January.
    13. Tatyana Deryugina & Barrett Kirwan, 2018. "Does The Samaritan'S Dilemma Matter? Evidence From U.S. Agriculture," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(2), pages 983-1006, April.
    14. Müller, Daniel, 2019. "The anatomy of distributional preferences with group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 785-807.
    15. Kaplan, Jonathan D. & Howitt, Richard E. & Kroll, Stephan, 2012. "Private Provision of a Stochastic Common Property Resource," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124855, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Jeitschko, Thomas D. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2012. "Signaling in deterministic and stochastic settings," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 39-55.
    17. David Dickinson & Lynn Hunnicutt, 2010. "Nonbinding recommendations: the relative effects of focal points versus uncertainty reduction on bargaining outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 615-634, October.
    18. Pavel Ciaian & D'Artis Kancs & Johan Swinnen, 2014. "The Impact of the 2013 Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy on Land Capitalization in the European Union," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 36(4), pages 643-673.
    19. repec:zbw:inwedp:652016 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Pavel Ciaian & d'Artis Kancs & Maria Espinosa, 2018. "The Impact of the 2013 CAP Reform on the Decoupled Payments’ Capitalisation into Land Values," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 306-337, June.
    21. C. Duke & L. Gangadharan, 2005. "Salinity in Water Markets : An ExperimentalInvestigation of the Sunraysia Salinity Levy, Victoria," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 950, The University of Melbourne.

    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:jjrfmx:v:14:y:2021:i:12:p:608-:d:703071. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.