IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pbs/ecofin/2020-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Experimental effects of institutionalizing co-determination by a procedurally fair bidding rule

Author

Listed:
  • Federica Alberti

    (University of Portsmouth)

  • Werner Güth

    (LUISS Guido Carli and Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods)

  • Kei Tsutsui

    (University of Bath)

Abstract

We experimentally investigate corporate governance of a co-determined firm. The experimental setup confronts the firm’s manager with three employees as stakeholders. There are two investment opportunities, each of which could affect the stakeholders either positively or negatively. First, the manager states his or her demand of the total value of each investment. Then the three stakeholders, knowing the manager’s demands, state their claims via bidding. The bidding rule is procedurally fair by treating all three stakeholders equally as long as stakeholders truthfully state their own values, but offers underbidding incentives. We find that most stakeholder-participants do underbid. The total bids are not significantly different from the managers’ claims. Contrary to game theoretical prediction, manager-participants demand a fair share of the value rather than almost the entire investment value.

Suggested Citation

  • Federica Alberti & Werner Güth & Kei Tsutsui, 2020. "Experimental effects of institutionalizing co-determination by a procedurally fair bidding rule," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2020-10, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
  • Handle: RePEc:pbs:ecofin:2020-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.port.ac.uk/EconFinance/PBSEconFin_2020_10.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simona Cicognani & Anna D’Ambrosio & Werner Güth & Simone Pfuderer & Matteo Ploner, 2015. "Community projects: an experimental analysis of a fair implementation process," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 109-132, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Uwe Jirjahn, 2017. "Works Councils and Collective Bargaining in Germany: A Simple Theoretical Extension to Reconcile Conflicting Empirical Findings," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 173(2), pages 322-346, June.
    4. Gary Gorton & Frank Schmid, 2000. "Class Struggle Inside the Firm: A Study of German Codetermination," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 00-36, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    5. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    6. 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.
    7. Bagnoli, Mark & McKee, Michael, 1991. "Voluntary Contribution Games: Efficient Private Provision of Public Goods," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 29(2), pages 351-366, April.
    8. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    9. James G. MacKinnon, 2002. "Bootstrap inference in econometrics," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 615-645, November.
    10. Steffen Andersen & Seda Ertac & Uri Gneezy & Moshe Hoffman & John A. List, 2011. "Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3427-3439, December.
    11. Charlotte Klempt & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler, 2019. "Asymmetric Information in Simple Bargaining Games: An Experimental Study," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 20(1), pages 29-51, February.
    12. Rachel Croson & Melanie Marks, 2000. "Step Returns in Threshold Public Goods: A Meta- and Experimental Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(3), pages 239-259, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Chang, Chun, 1992. "Capital Structure as an Optimal Contract between Employees and Investors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(3), pages 1141-1158, July.
    15. Güth, Werner & Vittoria Levati, M. & Montinari, Natalia, 2014. "Ranking alternatives by a fair bidding rule: A theoretical and experimental analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 206-221.
    16. Samuel Bowles & Robert Boyd & Colin Camerer & Ernst Fehr & Herbert Gintis & Joseph Henrich & Richard McElreath, 2001. "In search of homo economicus: Experiments in 15 small-scale societies," Artefactual Field Experiments 00068, The Field Experiments Website.
    17. Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler & Alexandra K. Zaby, 2017. "Blindfolded vs. Informed Ultimatum Bargaining – A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 18(4), pages 444-467, November.
    18. Plott, Charles R, 1994. "Market Architectures, Institutional Landscapes and Testbed Experiments," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 4(1), pages 3-10, January.
    19. Olaf Hübler & Uwe Jirjahn, 2003. "Works Councils and Collective Bargaining in Germany: The Impact on Productivity and Wages," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 50(4), pages 471-491, September.
    20. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Zauner, Klaus G., 2001. "Ultimatum Bargaining Behavior in Israel, Japan, Slovenia, and the United States: A Social Utility Analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 238-269, February.
    21. 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.
    22. repec:feb:framed:0088 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Fauver, Larry & Fuerst, Michael E., 2006. "Does good corporate governance include employee representation? Evidence from German corporate boards," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 673-710, December.
    24. Charles Cadsby & Rachel Croson & Melanie Marks & Elizabeth Maynes, 2008. "Step return versus net reward in the voluntary provision of a threshold public good: An adversarial collaboration," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 277-289, June.
    25. Charlotte Klempt & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler, 2019. "Asymmetric Information in Simple Bargaining Games: An Experimental Study," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 20(1), pages 29-51, February.
    26. Güth, Werner & Koukoumelis, Anastasios & Levati, M. Vittoria & Ploner, Matteo, 2014. "Providing revenue-generating projects under a fair mechanism: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 410-419.
    27. Gary Gorton & Frank A. Schmid, 2004. "Capital, Labor, and The Firm: A Study of German Codetermination," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(5), pages 863-905, September.
    28. R. Isaac & David Schmidtz & James Walker, 1989. "The assurance problem in a laboratory market," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 217-236, September.
    29. Croson, Rachel & Marks, Melanie, 2001. "The Effect of Recommended Contributions in the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 238-249, April.
    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. Federica Alberti & Werner Güth & Hartmut Kliemt & Kei Tsutsui, 2020. "Implementing stakeholder participation as “egalitarian bidding” – The test of the Kantian pudding is in the institutionalized eating," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2020-09, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.

    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. James Andreoni & Laura Gee, 2015. "Gunning for efficiency with third party enforcement in threshold public goods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(1), pages 154-171, March.
    2. Federica Alberti & Edward J. Cartwright, 2016. "Full agreement and the provision of threshold public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 205-233, January.
    3. Federica Alberti & Anna Cartwright & Edward Cartwright, 2021. "Predicting Efficiency in Threshold Public Good Games: A Learning Direction Theory Approach," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2021-01, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    4. List John A., 2007. "Field Experiments: A Bridge between Lab and Naturally Occurring Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-47, April.
    5. Maoliang Ye & Jie Zheng & Plamen Nikolov & Sam Asher, 2020. "One Step at a Time: Does Gradualism Build Coordination?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 113-129, January.
    6. Werner Güth & Anastasios Koukoumelis & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2012. "Public projects benefiting some and harming others: three experimental studies," Jena Economic Research Papers 2012-034, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    7. Charles Cadsby & Rachel Croson & Melanie Marks & Elizabeth Maynes, 2008. "Step return versus net reward in the voluntary provision of a threshold public good: An adversarial collaboration," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 277-289, June.
    8. Christian Feige & Karl-Martin Ehrhart & Jan Krämer, 2018. "Climate Negotiations in the Lab: A Threshold Public Goods Game with Heterogeneous Contributions Costs and Non-binding Voting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 343-362, June.
    9. Julian Rauchdobler & Rupert Sausgruber & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2010. "Voting on Thresholds for Public Goods: Experimental Evidence," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 66(1), pages 34-64, March.
    10. Corazzini, Luca & Cotton, Christopher & Valbonesi, Paola, 2015. "Donor coordination in project funding: Evidence from a threshold public goods experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 16-29.
    11. Cartwright, Edward & Stepanova, Anna, 2015. "The consequences of a refund in threshold public good games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 29-33.
    12. Yin, Xile & Li, Jianbiao & Bao, Te, 2019. "Does overconfidence promote cooperation? Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 119-133.
    13. Bougherara, Douadia & Denant-Boemont, Laurent & Masclet, David, 2011. "Cooperation and framing effects in provision point mechanisms: Experimental evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1200-1210, April.
    14. Edward Cartwright & Anna Stepanova, 2017. "Efficiency in a forced contribution threshold public good game," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(4), pages 1163-1191, November.
    15. Luca Corazzini & Christopher Cotton & Paola Valbonesi, 2013. "Too many charities? Insight from an experiment with multiple public goods and contribution thresholds," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0171, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    16. Cason, Timothy N. & Zubrickas, Robertas, 2019. "Donation-based crowdfunding with refund bonuses," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 452-471.
    17. Jana Friedrichsen & Katharina Momsen & Stefano Piasenti, 2020. "Ignorance, Intention and Stochastic Outcomes," Working Papers 2020-31, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    18. Jiří Špalek & Zuzana Berná, 2011. "Threshold Effectiveness in Contributing to the Public Goods: Experiments Involving Czech Students," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2011(3), pages 250-267.
    19. Coats, Jennifer C. & Gronberg, Timothy J. & Grosskopf, Brit, 2009. "Simultaneous versus sequential public good provision and the role of refunds -- An experimental study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 326-335, February.
    20. Barber IV, Benjamin S. & English, William, 2019. "The origin of wealth matters: Equity norms trump equality norms in the ultimatum game with earned endowments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 33-43.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    corporate management; co-determination; procedural fairness; laboratory experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J52 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - Dispute Resolution: Strikes, Arbitration, and Mediation
    • J54 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - Producer Cooperatives; Labor Managed Firms
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior

    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:pbs:ecofin:2020-10. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/depbsuk.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 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: Shuonan Zhang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/depbsuk.html .

    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.