IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bdr/borrec/1092.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preferences, Uncertainty, and Biases in Land Division: A Bargaining Experiment in the Field

Author

Listed:
  • Margarita Gáfaro

    () (Banco de la República de Colombia)

  • César Mantilla

    ()

Abstract

Divisions of rural land in developing countries reduce the possibilities of farmers to profit from agricultural returns to scale. We design and conduct a framed bargaining experiment to study whether land overvaluation (due to affective reasons) and uncertainty in land values are drivers for land division. In our bargaining game, two players with different agricultural productivity jointly inherit a land plot and individually inherit some tokens they can use to agree on a land allocation. The possible set of land allocations and the spread of land returns vary across treatment arms in the game. We conduct this experiment with 256 participants in eight rural municipalities of the Northeast of Colombia. We find that when players are allowed to divide the land plot, 75% of the bargaining interactions yield the most egalitarian, but less efficient, land allocations. Based on the predictions of a Nash bargaining model and the observations from a sample of 120 college students, we rule out land overvaluation as a driver for land divisions in the context of our game. We also find that uncertainty in land yields reduces the efficiency of land allocations when we do not allow land divisions, by increasing the likelihood of the least productive player keeping the entire land plot. Our results are consistent with a bounded rationality rule in which subjects incorporate a behavioral response to uncertainty by first bargaining over land, which is a certain outcome, and then bargaining over a token transfer. **** RESUMEN: Las divisiones de tierras rurales en los países en desarrollo limitan las posibilidades de los agricultores en estos países de aprovechar economías de escala derivadas de la mecanización. Diseñamos y llevamos a cabo un experimento de negociación para explorar si la sobrevaloración de la tierra (debido a razones afectivas) y la incertidumbre sobre el valor de la tierra explican divisiones ineficientes de tierras en contextos agrícolas. En nuestro juego de negociación, dos jugadores con diferentes niveles de productividad agrícola heredan conjuntamente una parcela de tierra e individualmente heredan algunas fichas que pueden usar para acordar una repartición de la parcela. Variamos aleatoriamente, entre grupos de tratamiento en el juego, el conjunto de posibles reparticiones de la parcela y la dispersión de los retornos de la tierra. Llevamos a cabo este experimento con 256 participantes en ocho municipios rurales del nororiente de Colombia. Encontramos que cuando se permite a los jugadores dividir la parcela, el 75% de las interacciones de negociación generan las asignaciones de tierra más igualitarias, pero menos eficientes. Con base en las predicciones de un modelo de negociación de Nash y las observaciones de una muestra de 120 estudiantes universitarios, descartamos la sobrevaluación de la tierra como motor de divisiones de tierra en el contexto de nuestro juego. Por otro lado, encontramos que una mayor incertidumbre en los rendimientos de la tierra reduce la eficiencia en las asignaciones de tierra cuando eliminamos las divisiones igualitarias del conjunto de posibles reparticiones. Nuestros resultados son consistentes con una regla de racionalidad limitada en la cual los sujetos incorporan una respuesta conductual a la incertidumbre, al negociar primero sobre una asignacin de tierra, que es un resultado fijo y determinado, y luego negociar sobre una transferencia de fichas.

Suggested Citation

  • Margarita Gáfaro & César Mantilla, 2019. "Preferences, Uncertainty, and Biases in Land Division: A Bargaining Experiment in the Field," Borradores de Economia 1092, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
  • Handle: RePEc:bdr:borrec:1092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repositorio.banrep.gov.co/bitstream/handle/20.500.12134/9751/be_1092.pdf?sequence=8&isAllowed=y
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tasso Adamopoulos & Diego Restuccia, 2014. "The Size Distribution of Farms and International Productivity Differences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(6), pages 1667-1697, June.
    2. Mearns, Robin, 1999. "Access to land in rural India - policy issues and options," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2123, The World Bank.
    3. Raul Santaeulalia-Llopis & Diego Restuccia, 2014. "Land Misallocation and Productivity," 2014 Meeting Papers 1314, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    4. Joseph Henrich, 2001. "In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 73-78, May.
    5. Galor, Oded & Moav, Omer & Vollrath, Dietrich, 2003. "Land Inequality and the Origin of Divergence and Overtaking in the Growth Process: Theory and Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 3817, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. J J Edney, 1976. "The psychological role of property rights in human behavior," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 8(7), pages 811-822, July.
    7. Roth, Alvin E & Rothblum, Uriel G, 1982. "Risk Aversion and Nash's Solution for Bargaining Games with Risky Outcomes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 639-647, May.
    8. Macours, Karen & Janvry, Alain de & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 2010. "Insecurity of property rights and social matching in the tenancy market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(7), pages 880-899, October.
    9. Besley, Timothy & Ghatak, Maitreesh, 2010. "Property Rights and Economic Development," Handbook of Development Economics,, Elsevier.
    10. Castillo, Marco & Petrie, Ragan & Torero, Maximo & Vesterlund, Lise, 2013. "Gender differences in bargaining outcomes: A field experiment on discrimination," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 35-48.
    11. Alekseev, Aleksandr & Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2017. "Experimental methods: When and why contextual instructions are important," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 48-59.
    12. Henrich, Joseph & Boyd, Robert & Bowles, Samuel & Camerer, Colin & Fehr, Ernst & Gintis, Herbert (ed.), 2004. "Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199262052.
    13. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    14. Jacob K. Goeree & Luke Lindsay, 2012. "Designing package markets to eliminate exposure risk," ECON - Working Papers 071, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    15. Oded Galor & Omer Moav & Dietrich Vollrath, 2004. "Land Inequality and the Origin of Divergence and Overtaking in the Growth Process," GE, Growth, Math methods 0410004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Safra, Zvi & Zhou, Lin & Zilcha, Itzhak, 1990. "Risk Aversion in the Nash Bargaining Problem with Risky Outcomes and Risky Disagreement Points," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 961-965, July.
    17. repec:bdr:ensayo:y:2019:i:89:p:1-54 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. J J Edney, 1976. "The Psychological Role of Property Rights in Human Behavior," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 8(7), pages 811-822, October.
    19. Murnighan, J Keith & Roth, Alvin E & Schoumaker, Francoise, 1988. "Risk Aversion in Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 101-124, March.
    20. Harrison, Glenn W & McCabe, Kevin A, 1996. "Expectations and Fairness in a Simple Bargaining Experiment," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(3), pages 303-327.
    21. Klaus Deininger, 2003. "Land Markets in Developing and Transition Economies: Impact of Liberalization and Implications for Future Reform," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1217-1222.
    22. repec:col:000107:017142 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Thomson, William, 1987. "Monotonicity of bargaining solutions with respect to the disagreement point," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 50-58, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land division; Nash bargaining; affective value of land; nonuse value; División de tierras; negociación de Nash; valor afectivo; valor de no uso;

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment

    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:bdr:borrec:1092. 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: (Clorith Angélica Bahos Olivera). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/brcgvco.html .

    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.