IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v92y2016i3p515-533.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Pengfei Liu
  • Stephen K. Swallow
  • Christopher M. Anderson

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Pengfei Liu & Stephen K. Swallow & Christopher M. Anderson, 2016. "Threshold-Level Public Goods Provision with Multiple Units: Experimental Effects of Disaggregated Groups with Rebates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(3), pages 515-533.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:92:y:2016:i:3:p:515-533
    Note: DOI: 10.3368/le.92.3.515
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    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 below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:ecolec:v:143:y:2018:i:c:p:236-252 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Swallow, Stephen K. & Anderson, Christopher M. & Uchida, Emi, 2018. "The Bobolink Project: Selling Public Goods From Ecosystem Services Using Provision Point Mechanisms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 236-252.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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: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: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.