Collective versus Random Fining: An Experimental Study on Controlling Ambient Pollution
This paper presents an experimental study oftwo different pollution compliance games:collective vis-à-vis random fining as ameans to regulate non-pointpollution. Using samples from both Costa Ricancoffee mill managers and Costa Rican students,we find that the two games perform equivalentlybut, although they lead to efficient outcomesthrough Nash play in the majority of cases, theobserved frequency of Nash play is lower thantheoretically predicted. Moreover, we rejectthe hypothesis that managers and studentsbehave equally. Off the equilibrium, managerstend to over-abate, whereas students tend tounder-abate. This result suggests theimportance of considering subject pooldifferences in the evaluation of environmentalpolicies by means of experiments, particularlyif those policies involve certain forms ofmanagement decisions. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 29 (2004)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Postal:c/o EAERE Secretariat - Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei - Isola di San Giorgio Maggiore 8, I-30124 Venice, Italy
Web page: http://www.eaere.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/environmental/journal/10640/PS2|
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.:
- Nalbantian, Haig R & Schotter, Andrew, 1997.
"Productivity under Group Incentives: An Experimental Study,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 314-41, June.
- Nalbantian, Haig & Schotter, Andrew, 1994. "Productivity Under Group Incentives: An Experimental Study," Working Papers 94-04, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F. & Govindasamy, R., 1994.
"Budget Balancing Incentive Mechanisms,"
Staff General Research Papers Archive
1503, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Joseph A. Herriges & Ramu Govindasamy & Jason F. Shogren, 1992. "Budget Balancing Incentive Mechanisms," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 92-wp100, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
- Plott, Charles R., .
"Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics,"
405, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Plott, Charles R, 1982. "Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1485-1527, December.
- Cunningham, William H & Anderson, W Thomas, Jr & Murphy, John H, 1974. "Are Students Real People?," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(3), pages 399-409, July.
- Starmer, C., 1998.
"Experimental Economics: Hard Science or Wasteful Tinkering,"
University of East Anglia Discussion Papers in Economics
9802, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
- Starmer, Chris, 1999. "Experimental Economics: Hard Science or Wasteful Tinkering?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages F5-15, February.
- Binmore, Ken, 1999. "Why Experiment in Economics?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages F16-24, February.
- Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-78, September.
- John Spraggon, 1998.
"Exogenous Targeting Instruments as a Solution to Group Moral Hazards,"
Department of Economics Working Papers
1998-01, McMaster University.
- Spraggon, John, 2002. "Exogenous targeting instruments as a solution to group moral hazards," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 427-456, June.
- Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-55, December.
- Segerson, Kathleen, 1988. "Uncertainty and incentives for nonpoint pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 87-98, March.
- Bengt Holmstrom, 1981.
"Moral Hazard in Teams,"
471, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Kritikos Alexander S., 1993. "Environmental Policy under Imperfect Information: Comment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 89-92, July.
- Friedman,Daniel & Sunder,Shyam, 1994. "Experimental Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521456821, October.
- Xepapadeas, A. P., 1991. "Environmental policy under imperfect information: Incentives and moral hazard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 113-126, March.
- Beattie, Jane & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 155-68, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:29:y:2004:i:2:p:231-252. 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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.