IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genstf/201301010800004327.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Self-selection and peer-effects in experimental labor markets

Author

Listed:
  • Baul, Tushi

Abstract

In my dissertation, I use experimental methods to study the otherwise unobservable labor market interactions, social norms and peer-effects in non-cognitive skills acquisition.In my first Chapter, I use experimental methods to better understand behavioral roots of corruption. Corruption is endemic to most developing countries. Most of the recent research in economics has focused on documenting the existence of corruption, measuring its economic impact and designing effective mechanisms to reduce incentives for bureaucrats to engage in corruption. Anecdotal evidence often suggests that improving the internal workings of bureaucracies is insufficient, unless corrupt officials are permanently replaced. It might be the case that people with a lower personal cost of engaging in unethical behavior choose to become bureaucrats because they are relatively more efficient at corruption. As a result, we might find a higher number of dishonest people opting for public sector jobs. If this were the case, corruption might be hard to fight, since corrupt institutions will attract more corrupt employees. In my dissertation I explore this self-selection of more corruptible individuals into public sector. Using a laboratory experiment, I answer the question of whether or not labor market sorting in the preference between public and private sector can be explained in part by propensity to engage in unethical behavior.It is hard to get observational individual-level data on corruption because it is secretive in nature. Testing my self-selection hypothesis is particularly challenging because propensity to engage in unethical behavior is typically not measured in observational or survey data. Moreover, data on bureaucrats and politicians before they joined the civil service or became public officials is typically not available. Also, economic policies that are often designed to attract a better pool of bureaucrats, include increasing wages. It is difficult to separate selection based on propensity to engage in unethical behavior from the selection effects of increased monetary incentives. Therefore, I choose experimental methods to study my research question.In Chapter 1, I provide experimental evidence of the sorting effect into the public and private sector. I conducted this experiment (from hereby called Experiment 1) at one of the largest public universities and a premier management institute in India. From these two institutes, I recruited a cross-section of students. I created a firm-like environment in the laboratory and divided subjects randomly into ``workers'' and ``supervisors.'' Subjects played a game that measured the propensity of supervisors to engage in unethical behavior. I then linked the propensity to engage in unethical behavior to future career choice. Related deception experiments in economics and psychology suggest that not all people engage in dishonest behavior. Therefore, I treat the willingness to engage in unethical behavior as an agent's preference characteristic.The findings of this study suggest that both public sector and private sector aspirants are equally likely to cheat. In fact, 64 percent of the private sector aspirants and 70 percent of the public sector aspirants cheat. While there is no statistical difference in the proportion of cheaters in the two sectors, the amount of cheating in the two sectors is significantly different. Public sector aspirants cheat 51.5 percent more than private sector aspirants. Since the choice of sector comes from a survey question and is not measured through the experimental design and I also treat subjects' propensity to engage in unethical behavior as a preference characteristic, these experimental data provide evidence of sorting based on propensity to engage in unethical behavior.While in Chapter 1 I address individual unethical behavior, in Chapter 2, I study group behavior, specifically social norms regarding bribe-giving and bribe-taking in India, using a novel experimental method introduced by Krupka and Weber (2008). Economists have emphasized the strong effect of social norms and legal enforcement on corruption. However, social norms are difficult to measure. Social scientists commonly use surveys to measure norms. There are pros and cons to using a survey. First, surveys are non-incentive compatible. Second, because corruption is a sensitive issue, the norms measured by a survey might be biased and not reflect participants' truthful response.For Chapter 2, I used a unique experimental method to measure the social norms regarding bribe-giving and bribe-taking in India for a common corrupt situation (i.e., obtaining a driver's license in India). The subjects of this experiment were the ``workers'' who participated in Experiment 1. After Experiment 1, the workers were asked to elicit the social norms regarding bribe-giving and bribe-taking in India. In this norm experiment, we asked subjects to provide social acceptability ratings for five situations related to bribe-taking and bribe-giving encountered by a driver's license applicant in India. Subjects were provided with incentives to match their rating with the ratings of others. The subjects were required to think how others would respond, and not about their own preferences. This followed a coordination game related to the ``shared understanding'' of social norms.Situation 1 depicts a driver's license applicant who fails the driving test and the public official who asks him to pay a bribe to obtain the license. The subjects rated the actions of the officer asking for a bribe and also the conditional actions of the citizen accepting or rejecting the officer's bribe request. There were four actions: low, medium, and high bribe amounts and honest action of the officer.Situation 2 is framed from the perspective of the applicant. The driver's license applicant fails the driving test and offers a bribe to the public official to obtain the license. Situation 3 describes the exact situation the subjects encountered in Experiment 1. Here I obtained appropriateness ratings of the actions that the subjects encountered in Experiment 1. Situations 4 and 5 are similar to Situations 1 and 2 with one exception. To set reference points for the subjects, I provided the additional information that most officers at the drivers' license office ask for a side payment if the applicant fails the driving test.This is the first experimental study that quantifies the social norms regarding bribe-giving and bribe-taking in India for a common corrupt situation. I found that social acceptability ratings are malleable to the amounts of bribes. Subjects are not able to coordinate on the socially acceptability ratings for lower amount of bribes. However, the higher bribe amounts are rated as socially inappropriate by the majority. In the socially acceptable treatment i.e. Situations 4 and 5, the social acceptability ratings of bribe giving and bribe taking were lower than in Situations 1 and 2. I found that bribe giving is more socially unacceptable than bribe taking in Situations 4 and 5. However, this difference is not significant in Situations 1 and 2.I also addressed a methodological concern arising from the experimental method used to measure the social norms regarding corruption for a particular situation (i.e., obtaining a driver's license in India). The participants of the norm experiment were the ``workers'' in Experiment 1. They participated in the unethical behavior experiment before eliciting the social norms. One criticism of this subject pool is that their views might have been biased. To address this concern, we conducted the norm experiment on a separate pool whose only role was to elicit the social norms. There was no difference in the description of vignettes and experimental procedures between the two subject pools. I found no difference in the norms elicitation between the two subject pools.For Chapters 1 and 2, I conducted my own experiments in India. For Chapter 3, I used the experimental data of Leider et al. (2009) to study the effects of social networks on non-cognitive skills, particularly self-confidence regarding one's ability. Recent research in psychology and economics has emphasized the importance of non-cognitive skills on labor market outcomes. We used economic experiments to measure participants' beliefs about their expected relative performance in a real-effort task using an incentive-compatible mechanism for belief elicitation. We then combined these self-confidence measures with a unique dataset on the social network of the participants to investigate whether there are peer effects in confidence.We found that more confident participants tend to have more confident friends. Peer effects might be an important transmission mechanism for acquisition of self-confidence. We then divided our subjects into years at college and explored whether our finding was due to selection (confident participants choose confident friends) or social interaction (one's confidence is influenced by friends' confidence). We found that the results are significant for seniors and juniors. However, to separate the treatment effect from the selection effect, we need to carefully design a longitudinal study where we follow a cohort of students through years at college. Therefore, this cross-sectional experimental data provide preliminary evidence of the treatment effect in peer effects.My dissertation research contributes to the literature in labor economics and experimental economics. To summarize, in the first chapter, I highlight the evidence of sorting based on propensity to engage in unethical behavior by public and private sector aspirants. The second chapter highlights the importance of social norms in corruption. In the third chapter, I study peer effects in non-cognitive skills. The findings of my first chapter provide evidence of self-selection into the public vs. private sector based on propensity to engage in unethical behavior. A caveat of this study is that the subjects were university students who were yet to join the public or private sector. In my future research, I want to track the subjects and collect data on their real-life career choices. Findings of my second chapter suggest that when corruption is prominent, government policy should be targeted toward changing the social norms around corruption. Stronger legal enforcement of rules can help change the perception of corruption. My experimental design is not sufficient to separate the exact channel which leads to a higher mean rating for the social acceptability of bribe-giving and bribe-taking under socially acceptable treatment. In my future research, I want to separate the effects of these channels. The findings of the third chapter provide evidence of peer effects in acquiring non-cognitive skills. I am now conducting a longitudinal experiment at the Indian Institute of Management, where I am following a cohort of management students for two years. This experiment will help us segregate the selection and treatment effect of peer effects not only in non-cognitive skills but also in other-regarding preferences and competitive preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Baul, Tushi, 2013. "Self-selection and peer-effects in experimental labor markets," ISU General Staff Papers 201301010800004327, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:isu:genstf:201301010800004327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4327&context=etd
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Third Party Punishment and Social Norms," IEW - Working Papers 106, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. James Heckman, 2011. "Policies to foster human capital," Educational Studies, Higher School of Economics, issue 3, pages 73-137.
    4. Gordon Winston & David Zimmerman, 2004. "Peer Effects in Higher Education," NBER Chapters, in: College Choices: The Economics of Where to Go, When to Go, and How to Pay For It, pages 395-424, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 1996. "Altruism in Anonymous Dictator Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 181-191, October.
    6. David J. Zimmerman, 2003. "Peer Effects in Academic Outcomes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(1), pages 9-23, February.
    7. Gregg, Paul & Grout, Paul A. & Ratcliffe, Anita & Smith, Sarah & Windmeijer, Frank, 2011. "How important is pro-social behaviour in the delivery of public services?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 758-766, August.
    8. Danila Serra & Pieter Serneels & Abigail Barr, 2010. "Intrinsic motivations and the non-profit health sector: Evidence from Ethiopia," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 10-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    9. Urs Fischbacher & Franziska Föllmi-Heusi, 2013. "Lies In Disguise—An Experimental Study On Cheating," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 525-547, June.
    10. Stephen Leider & Markus M. Möbius & Tanya Rosenblat & Quoc-Anh Do, 2009. "Directed Altruism and Enforced Reciprocity in Social Networks," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 124(4), pages 1815-1851.
    11. Benjamin A. Olken & Rohini Pande, 2012. "Corruption in Developing Countries," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 479-509, July.
    12. Stephen Leider & Markus M. Möbius & Tanya Rosenblat & Quoc-Anh Do, 2010. "What Do We Expect from Our Friends?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(1), pages 120-138, March.
    13. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    14. David Marmaros & Bruce Sacerdote, 2006. "How Do Friendships Form?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(1), pages 79-119.
    15. Victor Lavy & Analia Schlosser, 2011. "Mechanisms and Impacts of Gender Peer Effects at School," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 1-33, April.
    16. Andvig, Jens Chr. & Moene, Karl Ove, 1990. "How corruption may corrupt," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 63-76, January.
    17. Constant, Amelie F. & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2003. "Occupational Choice Across Generations," IZA Discussion Papers 975, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Matthew Neidell & Jane Waldfogel, 2010. "Cognitive and Noncognitive Peer Effects in Early Education," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(3), pages 562-576, August.
    19. Bruce Sacerdote, 2001. "Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(2), pages 681-704.
    20. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    21. Jean Tirole, 1996. "A Theory of Collective Reputations (with applications to the persistence of corruption and to firm quality)," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 63(1), pages 1-22.
    22. repec:mpr:mprres:4324 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    24. George A. Akerlof, 1980. "A Theory of Social Custom, of which Unemployment may be One Consequence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 94(4), pages 749-775.
    25. Armin Falk & Andrea Ichino, 2006. "Clean Evidence on Peer Effects," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 39-58, January.
    26. Nicola Persico & Andrew Postlewaite & Dan Silverman, 2004. "The Effect of Adolescent Experience on Labor Market Outcomes: The Case of Height," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(5), pages 1019-1053, October.
    27. Mehta, Judith & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1994. "The Nature of Salience: An Experimental Investigation of Pure Coordination Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 658-673, June.
    28. Larry L. Howard & Nishith Prakash, 2012. "Do employment quotas explain the occupational choices of disadvantaged minorities in India?," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 489-513, August.
    29. Benjamin A. Olken, 2007. "Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115, pages 200-249.
    30. Conlin, Michael & Lynn, Michael & O'Donoghue, Ted, 2003. "The norm of restaurant tipping," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 297-321, November.
    31. Hauk, Esther & Saez-Marti, Maria, 2002. "On the Cultural Transmission of Corruption," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 311-335, December.
    32. Michael Kremer & Dan Levy, 2003. "Peer effects and alcohol use among college students," Natural Field Experiments 00286, The Field Experiments Website.
    33. Cristina Iannelli, 2002. "Parental Education and Young People's Educational and Labour Market Outcomes: A Comparison across Europe," MZES Working Papers 45, MZES.
    34. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    35. Vivi Alatas & Lisa Cameron & Ananish Chaudhuri & Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan, 2009. "Subject pool effects in a corruption experiment: A comparison of Indonesian public servants and Indonesian students," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(1), pages 113-132, March.
    36. Buurman, Margaretha & Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert & Van den Bossche, Seth, 2012. "Public sector employees: Risk averse and altruistic?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 279-291.
    37. Michael Kremer & Dan M. Levy, 2003. "Peer Effects and Alcohol Use Among College Students," NBER Working Papers 9876, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    38. Amin, Shahina, 2004. "Ethnic differences and married women's employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 291-306, July.
    39. Schwieren, Christiane & Weichselbaumer, Doris, 2010. "Does competition enhance performance or cheating? A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 241-253, June.
    40. Nina Mazar & Dan Ariely, 2006. "Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications," Working Papers 06-3, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, revised 2006.
    41. Elinor Ostrom, 2000. "Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 137-158, Summer.
    42. James J. Heckman & Jora Stixrud & Sergio Urzua, 2006. "The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(3), pages 411-482, July.
    43. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    44. Roberta Gatti & Stefano Paternostro & Jamele Rigolini, 2003. "Individual attitudes toward corruption: do social effects matter?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3122, The World Bank.
    45. Ritva Reinikka & Jakob Svensson, 2004. "Local Capture: Evidence from a Central Government Transfer Program in Uganda," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(2), pages 679-705.
    46. Neal, Derek A & Johnson, William R, 1996. "The Role of Premarket Factors in Black-White Wage Differences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 869-895, October.
    47. Lui, Francis T, 1985. "An Equilibrium Queuing Model of Bribery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(4), pages 760-781, August.
    48. Mayer, Adalbert & Puller, Steven L., 2008. "The old boy (and girl) network: Social network formation on university campuses," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 329-347, February.
    49. Ichiro Tsukahara, 2007. "The Effect of Family Background on Occupational Choice," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 21(4‐5), pages 871-890, December.
    50. Guerrero, Manuel Alejandro & Rodriguez-Oreggia, Eduardo, 2008. "On the individual decisions to commit corruption: A methodological complement," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 357-372, February.
    51. Glen R. Waddell, 2006. "Labor-Market Consequences of Poor Attitude and Low Self-Esteem in Youth," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 44(1), pages 69-97, January.
    52. repec:pri:edures:23.pdf is not listed on IDEAS
    53. Nicola Persico & Andrew Postlewaite & Dan Silverman, 2001. "The Effect of Adolescent Experience on Labor Market Outcomes: The Case of Height, Third Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 04-013, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 15 Mar 2004.
    54. Paolo Mauro, 1995. "Corruption and Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 681-712.
    55. Brian Krauth, 2005. "Peer effects and selection effects on smoking among Canadian youth," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 735-757, August.
    56. Abbink, Klaus, 2004. "Staff rotation as an anti-corruption policy: an experimental study," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 887-906, November.
    57. Epple, Dennis & Romano, Richard E, 1998. "Competition between Private and Public Schools, Vouchers, and Peer-Group Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 33-62, March.
    58. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2002. "Self-Confidence and Personal Motivation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(3), pages 871-915.
    59. Rafael Di Tella & Ernesto Schargrodsky, 2004. "Do Police Reduce Crime? Estimates Using the Allocation of Police Forces After a Terrorist Attack," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 115-133, March.
    60. Didier Soopramanien & Geraint Johnes, 2001. "A New Look at Gender Effects in Participation and Occupation Choice," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 15(3), pages 415-443, September.
    61. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    62. Amartya Sen, 2010. "Africa and India: What do we have to learn from each other?," Working Papers id:2609, eSocialSciences.
    63. Yona Rubinstein & James J. Heckman, 2001. "The Importance of Noncognitive Skills: Lessons from the GED Testing Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 145-149, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    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:isu:genstf:201301010800004327. 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: (Curtis Balmer). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.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.