IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2512.24852.html

Scaling Charitable Incentives: Policy Selection, Beliefs, and Evidence from a Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Shusaku Sasaki
  • Takunori Ishihara
  • Hirofumi Kurokawa

Abstract

Why are interventions with weak evidence still adopted? We study charitable incentives for physical activity in Japan using three linked methods, including a randomized field experiment (N=808), a stakeholder belief survey (local government officials and private-sector employees, N=2,400), and a conjoint experiment on policy choice. Financial incentives increase daily steps by about 1,000, whereas charitable incentives deliver a precisely estimated null. Nonetheless, stakeholders greatly overpredict charitable incentives' effects on walking, participation, and prosociality. Conjoint choices show policymakers value step gains as well as other outcomes, shaping policy choice. Adoption thus reflects multidimensional beliefs and objectives, highlighting policy selection as a scaling challenge.

Suggested Citation

  • Shusaku Sasaki & Takunori Ishihara & Hirofumi Kurokawa, 2025. "Scaling Charitable Incentives: Policy Selection, Beliefs, and Evidence from a Field Experiment," Papers 2512.24852, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2512.24852
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.24852
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefano DellaVigna & Woojin Kim & Elizabeth Linos, 2024. "Bottlenecks for Evidence Adoption," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(8), pages 2748-2789.
    2. Emir Kamenica, 2012. "Behavioral Economics and Psychology of Incentives," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 427-452, July.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna & Devin Pope, 2018. "Predicting Experimental Results: Who Knows What?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(6), pages 2410-2456.
    4. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    5. Emma L Giles & Shannon Robalino & Elaine McColl & Falko F Sniehotta & Jean Adams, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviour Change: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    7. Stefano DellaVigna & Elizabeth Linos, 2022. "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 81-116, January.
    8. Schwartz, Daniel & Keenan, Elizabeth A. & Imas, Alex & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2021. "Opting-in to prosocial incentives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 132-141.
    9. Uri Gneezy & Stephan Meier & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2011. "When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify Behavior," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 191-210, Fall.
    10. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    11. Stefano Carattini & Robert Dur & John List, 2024. "Policy evaluation and the causal analysis of public support," Natural Field Experiments 00798, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    13. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Guglielmo Briscese & John A. List, 2024. "Toward an Understanding of the Political Economy of Using Field Experiments in Policymaking," NBER Working Papers 33239, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    3. Chadimová, Kateřina & Cahlíková, Jana & Cingl, Lubomír, 2022. "Foretelling what makes people pay: Predicting the results of field experiments on TV fee enforcement," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Córdova, Angélica & Imas, Alex & Schwartz, Daniel, 2021. "Are non-contingent incentives more effective in motivating new behavior? Evidence from the field," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 602-615.
    6. Amilon, Anna & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu & Vernstrøm Østergaard, Stine, 2020. "Willingness to pay for long-term home care services: Evidence from a stated preferences analysis," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    7. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    8. Mortimer, Duncan & Harris, Anthony & Wijnands, Jasper S. & Stevenson, Mark, 2021. "Persistence or reversal? The micro-effects of time-varying financial penalties," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 72-86.
    9. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    10. Jarke-Neuert, Johannes & Perino, Grischa & Schwickert, Henrike, 2021. "Free-Riding for Future: Field Experimental Evidence of Strategic Substitutability in Climate Protest," SocArXiv sh6dm, Center for Open Science.
    11. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/58ao15vh3t9tvakcshade02eov is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2014. "Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1107-1129, May.
    14. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Baid, Drishti, 2019. "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of incentives as a tool for prevention of non-communicable diseases: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 340-350.
    15. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    16. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, June.
    17. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimaging," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    19. Anna Alberini & Patrizia Riganti & Alberto Longo, 2003. "Can People Value the Aesthetic and Use Services of Urban Sites? Evidence from a Survey of Belfast Residents," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 193-213, November.
    20. Nicolas Jacquemet & Robert-Vincent Joule & Stéphane Luchini & Antoine Malézieux, 2016. "Engagement et incitations : comportements économiques sous serment," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 315-349.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2512.24852. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.