IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Threshold-Level Public Goods Provision with Multiple Units: Experimental Effects of Disaggregated Groups with Rebates

Listed author(s):
  • Pengfei Liu
  • Stephen K. Swallow
  • Christopher M. Anderson

We introduce two institutions that provide multiple public good units, assuming that a market-maker has the ability to establish groups of contributors. We set up an experiment where either all N individuals form one group to provide two units (aggregated approach), or divide the N participants into two groups, and each group provides one unit separately, with all individuals benefiting from any unit(s) provided (disaggregated approach). Our results show that the disaggregated approach produces higher contributions on average. We also find that the rebate of excess contributions has a larger influence in increasing contribution under the aggregated approach.

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.

File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/92/3/515
Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

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.

Article provided by University of Wisconsin Press in its journal Land Economics.

Volume (Year): 92 (2016)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 515-533

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:92:y:2016:i:3:p:515-533
Note: DOI: 10.3368/le.92.3.515
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://le.uwpress.org/

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.:

as
in new window


  1. Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Individual Behavior and Group Membership: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2247-2257, December.
  2. Alboth, Dirk & Lerner, Anat & Shalev, Jonathan, 2001. " Profit Maximizing in Auctions of Public Goods," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 3(4), pages 501-525.
  3. Didier Laussel & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2003. "Efficient Equilibria in the Voluntary Contributions Mechanism with Private Information," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 5(3), pages 449-478, July.
  4. Spencer, Michael A. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Shogren, Jason F. & List, John A., 2009. "Rebate rules in threshold public good provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(5-6), pages 798-806, June.
  5. Palfrey, Thomas R. & Prisbrey, Jeffrey E., 1996. "Altuism, reputation and noise in linear public goods experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 409-427, September.
  6. R. Mark Isaac & James M. Walker, 1988. "Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 103(1), pages 179-199.
  7. Swallow, Stephen K., 2013. "Demand-side Value for Ecosystem Services and Implications for Innovative Markets: Experimental Perspectives on the Possibility of Private Markets for Public Goods," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), April.
  8. Mark Bagnoli & Barton L. Lipman, 1989. "Provision of Public Goods: Fully Implementing the Core through Private Contributions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 583-601.
  9. Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gachter, 2010. "Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 541-556, March.
  10. Andreoni, James, 1995. "Cooperation in Public-Goods Experiments: Kindness or Confusion?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 891-904, September.
  11. Sarah Lichtenstein & Paul Slovic, 1973. "Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in las vegas," Framed Field Experiments 00169, The Field Experiments Website.
  12. Swallow, Stephen K. & Smith, Elizabeth C. & Uchida, Emi & Anderson, Christopher M., 2008. "Ecosystem Services Beyond Valuation, Regulation and Philanthropy: Integrating Consumer Values into the Economy," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(2).
  13. Vincent P. Crawford & Miguel A. Costa-Gomes & Nagore Iriberri, 2013. "Structural Models of Nonequilibrium Strategic Thinking: Theory, Evidence, and Applications," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 5-62, March.
  14. Robert W. Day & S. Raghavan, 2007. "Fair Payments for Efficient Allocations in Public Sector Combinatorial Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(9), pages 1389-1406, September.
  15. Smith, Vernon L & Suchanek, Gerry L & Williams, Arlington W, 1988. "Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1119-1151, September.
  16. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
  17. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1986. "On the Voluntary and Involuntary Provision of Public Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 789-793, September.
  18. Isaac, R. Mark & Walker, James M. & Williams, Arlington W., 1994. "Group size and the voluntary provision of public goods : Experimental evidence utilizing large groups," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-36, May.
  19. Marks, Melanie & Croson, Rachel, 1998. "Alternative rebate rules in the provision of a threshold public good: An experimental investigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 195-220, February.
  20. R. Isaac & David Schmidtz & James Walker, 1989. "The assurance problem in a laboratory market," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 217-236, September.
  21. Kawagoe, Toshiji & Mori, Toru, 2001. "Can the Pivotal Mechanism Induce Truth-Telling? An Experimental Study," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 108(3-4), pages 331-354, September.
  22. Mariagiovanna Baccara & Leeat Yariv, 2013. "Homophily in Peer Groups," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(3), pages 69-96, August.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:92:y:2016:i:3:p:515-533. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.