IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v28y2016i1p27-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common property in the trust game: Experimental evidence from Bulgaria

Author

Listed:
  • Eric A Coleman

Abstract

The extent of human cooperation depends on the institutional arenas wherein people interact. Scholars from the Ostrom school have been particularly interested in how behavior in common property institutions differs from private property. Using a model of reciprocal motivations, I hypothesize that common property institutions elicit less cooperation than private property institutions in post-Communist Bulgaria. To investigate this hypothesis, this article reports on a series of experiments that examine the effects of common and private property in the trust game. The results indicate that common property institutions in Bulgaria elicit less cooperation than private property.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric A Coleman, 2016. "Common property in the trust game: Experimental evidence from Bulgaria," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 27-43, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:28:y:2016:i:1:p:27-43
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629814568400
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629814568400
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629814568400?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cox, James C., 2004. "How to identify trust and reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 260-281, February.
    2. Juan Camilo Cardenas & Jeffrey Carpenter, 2008. "Behavioural Development Economics: Lessons from Field Labs in the Developing World," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 311-338.
    3. James C. Cox & Elinor Ostrom, & James M. Walker & Antonio Jamie Castillo & Eric Coleman & Robert Holahan & Michael Schoon & Brian Steed, 2009. "Trust in Private and Common Property Experiments," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(4), pages 957-975, April.
    4. James C. Cox & Elinor Ostrom & Vjollca Sadiraj & James M. Walker, 2013. "Provision versus Appropriation in Symmetric and Asymmetric Social Dilemmas," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(3), pages 496-512, January.
    5. James C. Cox & Daniel T. Hall, 2010. "Trust with Private and Common Property: Effects of Stronger Property Right Entitlements," Games, MDPI, vol. 1(4), pages 1-24, November.
    6. Bahry, Donna & Kosolapov, Mikhail & Kozyreva, Polina & Wilson, Rick K., 2005. "Ethnicity and Trust: Evidence from Russia," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(4), pages 521-532, November.
    7. Nava Ashraf & Iris Bohnet & Nikita Piankov, 2006. "Decomposing trust and trustworthiness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(3), pages 193-208, September.
    8. James C. Cox & Cary A. Deck, 2005. "On the Nature of Reciprocal Motives," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 43(3), pages 623-635, July.
    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. Czap, Hans J. & Czap, Natalia V. & Burbach, Mark E. & Lynne, Gary D., 2018. "Does Might Make Right? An Experiment on Assigning Property Rights," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 229-240.

    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. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovič, 2017. "Status quo effects in fairness games: reciprocal responses to acts of commission versus acts of omission," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Mahmud, Minhaj & Martinsson, Peter, 2013. "Trust, trust games and stated trust: Evidence from rural Bangladesh," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 286-298.
    3. Giovanni Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2016. "Trust and reciprocity: extensions and robustness of triadic design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 100-115, March.
    4. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovic, 2012. "Status Quo Effects in Fairness Games: Reciprocal Responses to Acts of Commission vs. Acts of Omission," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2012-03, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Mar 2016.
    5. James C. Cox, 2012. "Private Goods, Public Goods, and Common Pools with Homo Reciprocans," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(1), pages 1-14, July.
    6. James C. Cox & Elinor Ostrom & James M. Walker, 2011. "Bosses and Kings: Asymmetric Power in Paired Common Pool and Public Good Games," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2011-06, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Aug 2012.
    7. Delavande, Adeline & Zafar, Basit, 2015. "Stereotypes and Madrassas: Experimental evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 247-267.
    8. Luo, Jun & Wang, Xinxin, 2020. "Hukou identity and trust—Evidence from a framed field experiment in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    9. Kaiming Zheng & Xiaoyuan Wang & Debing Ni & Yang Yang, 2020. "Reciprocity and Veto Power in Relation-Specific Investments: An Experimental Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, May.
    10. Rahul Mehrotra & Vincent Somville & Lore vandewalle, 2016. "Increasing trust in the bank to enhance savings: Experimental evidence from India," CMI Working Papers 2, CMI (Chr. Michelsen Institute), Bergen, Norway.
    11. Ben-Ner, Avner & Halldorsson, Freyr, 2010. "Trusting and trustworthiness: What are they, how to measure them, and what affects them," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 64-79, February.
    12. Milosav, Đorđe & Nistotskaya, Marina, 2024. "Unpacking the relevance of interpersonal trust in the blockchain era: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    13. Hanna Freudenreich & Marcela Ibanez & Stephan Dietrich & Oliver Musshoff, 2018. "Formal insurance, risk sharing, and the dynamics of other-regarding preferences," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 266532, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    14. Masahiro Shoji, 2018. "Incentive for risk sharing and trust formation: experimental and survey evidence from Bangladesh," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(4), pages 1062-1083.
    15. Alvin Etang & David Fielding & Stephen Knowles, 2011. "Does trust extend beyond the village? Experimental trust and social distance in Cameroon," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(1), pages 15-35, March.
    16. James C. Cox & Elinor Ostrom & James M. Walker & Antonio Jamie Castillo & Eric Coleman & Robert Holahan & Michael Schoon & Brian Steed, 2009. "Trust in Private and Common Property Experiments," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(4), pages 957-975, April.
    17. Espín, Antonio M. & Exadaktylos, Filippos & Neyse, Levent, 2016. "Heterogeneous Motives in the Trust Game: A Tale of Two Roles," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 141321, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    18. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovič, 2012. "Status Quo Effects in Fairness Games: Acts of Commission vs. Acts of Omission," Working Papers in Economics 12/01, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    19. Di Bartolomeo Giovanni & Papa Stefano, 2012. "The triadic design to identify trust and reciprocity: Extensions and robustness," wp.comunite 0096, Department of Communication, University of Teramo.
    20. Jack, B. Kelsey, 2009. "Upstream-downstream transactions and watershed externalities: Experimental evidence from Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1813-1824, April.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:28:y:2016:i:1:p:27-43. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.