IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Foretelling What Makes People Pay: Predicting the Results of Field Experiments on TV Fee Enforcement


  • Katerina Chadimova
  • Jana Cahlikova
  • Lubomir Cingl


One of the current challenges in ï¬ eld experimentation is creating an efficient design including individual treatments. Ideally, a pilot should be run in advance, but when a pilot is not feasible, any information about the effectiveness of potential treatments’ to researchers is highly valuable. We run a laboratory experiment in which we forecast results of two large-scale ï¬ eld experiments focused on TV license fee collection to evaluate the extent to which it is possible to predict ï¬ eld experiment results using a non-expert subject pool. Our main result is that forecasters were relatively conservative regarding the absolute effectiveness of the treatments, but in most cases they correctly predicted the relative effectiveness. Our results suggest that, despite the artiï¬ ciality of laboratory environments, forecasts generated there may provide valuable estimates of the effectiveness of treatments.

Suggested Citation

  • Katerina Chadimova & Jana Cahlikova & Lubomir Cingl, 2019. "Foretelling What Makes People Pay: Predicting the Results of Field Experiments on TV Fee Enforcement," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2019-15_1, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
  • Handle: RePEc:mpi:wpaper:tax-mpg-rps-2019-15_1

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text (original version)
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    2. Erik Snowberg & Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz, 2007. "Partisan Impacts on the Economy: Evidence from Prediction Markets and Close Elections," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 122(2), pages 807-829.
    3. Heinz, Matthias & Jeworrek, Sabrina & Mertins, Vanessa & Schumacher, Heiner & Sutter, Matthias, 2017. "Measuring Indirect Effects of Unfair Employer Behavior on Worker Productivity - A Field Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 12429, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 3895-3962, Elsevier.
    5. Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz, 2004. "Prediction Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 107-126, Spring.
    6. Wolfers, Justin & Zitzewitz, Eric, 2006. "Interpreting Prediction Market Prices as Probabilities," IZA Discussion Papers 2092, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Gerlinde Fellner & Rupert Sausgruber & Christian Traxler, 2009. "Testing Enforcement Strategies in the Field: Legal Threat, Moral Appeal and Social Information," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_31, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    8. 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.
    9. Nicholas Bloom & Aprajit Mahajan & David McKenzie & John Roberts, 2020. "Do Management Interventions Last? Evidence from India," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 198-219, April.
    10. Gerlinde Fellner & Rupert Sausgruber & Christian Traxler, 2013. "Testing Enforcement Strategies In The Field: Threat, Moral Appeal And Social Information," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 634-660, June.
    11. Joel Slemrod, 2019. "Tax Compliance and Enforcement," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 57(4), pages 904-954, December.
    12. Anna, Petrenko, 2016. "Мaркування готової продукції як складова частина інформаційного забезпечення маркетингової діяльності підприємств овочепродуктового підкомплексу," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 2(1), March.
    13. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Allingham, Michael G. & Sandmo, Agnar, 1972. "Income tax evasion: a theoretical analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 323-338, November.
    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. Werner, Peter & Riedl, Arno, 2018. "The role of experiments for policy design," Research Memorandum 022, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    2. Dina Pomeranz & José Vila-Belda, 2019. "Taking State-Capacity Research to the Field: Insights from Collaborations with Tax Authorities," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 755-781, August.
    3. Galanis, S. & Ioannou, C. & Kotronis, S., 2019. "Information Aggregation Under Ambiguity: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 20/05, Department of Economics, City University London.
    4. Hallsworth, Michael & List, John A. & Metcalfe, Robert D. & Vlaev, Ivo, 2017. "The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 14-31.
    5. Castro, Lucio & Scartascini, Carlos, 2015. "Tax compliance and enforcement in the pampas evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 65-82.
    6. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & Clément Imbert & Johannes Spinnewijn & Teodora Tsankova & Maarten Luts, 2021. "How to Improve Tax Compliance? Evidence from Population-Wide Experiments in Belgium," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(5), pages 1425-1463.
    7. Joel Slemrod & Obeid Ur Rehman & Mazhar Waseem, 2022. "How Do Taxpayers Respond to Public Disclosure and Social Recognition Programs? Evidence from Pakistan," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(1), pages 116-132, March.
    8. Castro, Juan Francisco & Velásquez, Daniel & Beltrán, Arlette & Yamada, Gustavo, 2020. "Spillovers and Long-Run Effects of Messages on Tax Compliance: Experimental Evidence from Peru," IZA Discussion Papers 13974, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Marcelo L. Bérgolo & Rodrigo Ceni & Guillermo Cruces & Matias Giaccobasso & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2017. "Tax Audits as Scarecrows: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 23631, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. James Alm & Laura Rosales Cifuentes & Carlos Mauricio Ortiz Niño & Diana Rocha, 2019. "Can Behavioral “Nudges” Improve Compliance? The Case of Colombia Social Protection Contributions," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, October.
    11. Sinning, Mathias & Zhang, Yinjunjie, 2021. "Social norms or enforcement? A natural field experiment to improve traffic and parking fine compliance," Ruhr Economic Papers 900, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    12. Luigi Mittone & Matteo Ploner & Eugenio Verrina, 2021. "When the state does not play dice: aggressive audit strategies foster tax compliance," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(3), pages 591-615, October.
    13. Mechtenberg, Lydia & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2019. "Voter motivation and the quality of democratic choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 241-259.
    14. Kamm, Aaron & Koch, Christian & Nikiforakis, Nikos, 2021. "The ghost of institutions past: History as an obstacle to fighting tax evasion?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    15. Luigino Bruni & Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani & Matteo Rizzolli, 2020. "The Pied Piper: Prizes, Incentives, and Motivation Crowding-in," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 643-658, October.
    16. Antinyan, Armenak & Asatryan, Zareh, 2019. "Nudging for tax compliance: A meta-analysis," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-055, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Kasper, Matthias & Alm, James, 2022. "Audits, audit effectiveness, and post-audit tax compliance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 87-102.
    18. Grundmann, Susanna, 2020. "Do just deserts and competition shape patterns of cheating?," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-79-20, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    19. Ahmad Farhan Alshira’h & Moh’d Alsqour & Abdalwali Lutfi & Adi Alsyouf & Malek Alshirah, 2020. "A Socio-Economic Model of Sales Tax Compliance," Economies, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-15, October.
    20. Riedel, Nadine & Strohmaier, Kristina & Lediga, Collen, 2019. "Spatial Tax Enforcement Spillovers: Evidence from South Africa," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203500, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item


    lab experiments; forecasting experimental results; ï¬ eld experiments; behavioral economics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:mpi:wpaper:tax-mpg-rps-2019-15_1. 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: .

    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: Hans Mueller (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.