IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v28y2004i1p23-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Simple Risk-Sharing Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • John Bone

    ()

  • John Hey

    ()

  • John Suckling

Abstract

This paper reports on an experiment designed to test whether pairs of individuals are able to exploit ex ante efficiency gains in the sharing of a risky financial prospect. Observations from a previous experiment had suggested a general rejection of efficiency in favour of ex post equality. The present experiment explores some possible explanations for this. The results indicate that fairness is not a significant consideration, but rather that having to choose between prospects diverts partners from allocating the chosen prospect efficiently. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Suggested Citation

  • John Bone & John Hey & John Suckling, 2004. "A Simple Risk-Sharing Experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 23-38, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:28:y:2004:i:1:p:23-38
    DOI: 10.1023/B:RISK.0000009434.18807.bd
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/B:RISK.0000009434.18807.bd
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bone, John & Hey, John & Suckling, John, 1999. "Are Groups More (or Less) Consistent Than Individuals?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 63-81, April.
    2. Bone, John, 1998. "Risk-sharing CARA individuals are collectively EU," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 311-317, March.
    3. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475, August.
    4. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    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. Sutter, Matthias, 2005. "Are four heads better than two? An experimental beauty-contest game with teams of different size," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 41-46, July.
    2. David Masclet & Youenn Loheac & Laurent Denant-Boemont & Nathalie Colombier, 2004. "Group and individual risk preferences : a lottery-choice experiment," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla06063, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised Sep 2006.
    3. A. Chaudhuri & L. Gangadharan & Pushkar Maitra, 2005. "An Experimental Analysis ofGroup Size and Risk Sharing," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 955, The University of Melbourne.
    4. Olga A. Rud & Jean Paul Rabanal & Manizha Sharifova, 2018. "An experiment on the efficiency of bilateral exchange under incomplete markets," Working Papers 123, Peruvian Economic Association.
    5. Gary Charness & Garance Genicot, 2009. "Informal Risk Sharing in an Infinite-Horizon Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 796-825, April.
    6. Gary Charness, University of California, Santa Barbara and Garance Genicot,Georgetown University, 2004. "An Experimental Test of Risk-Sharing Arrangements," Working Papers gueconwpa~04-04-02, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
    7. Morone, Andrea & Temerario, Tiziana, 2015. "Eliciting Preferences Over Risk: An Experiment," MPRA Paper 68519, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Ruth Hill & Angelino Viceisza, 2012. "A field experiment on the impact of weather shocks and insurance on risky investment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(2), pages 341-371, June.
    9. Hill, Ruth Vargas & Viceisza, Angelino, 2010. "An experiment on the impact of weather shocks and insurance on risky investment," IFPRI discussion papers 974, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Nadja Trhal & Ralf Radermacher, 2006. "Bad luck vs. self-inflicted neediness – An experimental investigation of gift giving in a solidarity game," Working Paper Series in Economics 28, University of Cologne, Department of Economics, revised 07 Mar 2008.
    11. Masclet, David & Colombier, Nathalie & Denant-Boemont, Laurent & Lohéac, Youenn, 2009. "Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 470-484, June.
    12. Alexandros Karakostas & Axel Sonntag & Daniel John Zizzo, 2013. "Efficiency and Fairness in Revenue Sharing Contracts," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 13-03, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    13. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson & Ping Qin & Matthias Sutter, 2013. "The influence of spouses on household decision making under risk: an experiment in rural China," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 383-401, September.
    14. Bolle, Friedel & Liepmann, Hannah & Vogel, Claudia, 2012. "How much social insurance do you want? An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1170-1181.
    15. Pradiptyo, Rimawan & Sahadewo, Gumilang Aryo, 2012. "On The Complexity of Eliminating Fuel Subsidy in Indonesia; A Behavioral Approach," MPRA Paper 40045, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. M. I. Lau & T. Neugebauer & U. Schmidt, 2014. "Preface," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 287-290, October.
    17. Temerario, Tiziana, 2014. "Individual and Group Behaviour Toward Risk: A Short Survey," MPRA Paper 58079, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    risk-sharing; experiment; bargaining; fairness;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior

    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:kap:jrisku:v:28:y:2004:i:1:p:23-38. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.