IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/117811.html

Decentralized or Centralized Governance in Social Dilemmas? Experimental Evidence from Georgia

Author

Listed:
  • Mekvabishvili, Rati

Abstract

The vast majority of experimental studies on the effectiveness of punishments in promoting cooperation in social dilemma situation examine decentralized incentive systems where all group members can punish each other. Cross-societal experimental studies suggest that while decentralized incentives can successfully promote cooperation in one society, they fail to do so in another. So, how is social order, as a large-scale cooperation problem among strangers, maintained in such societies? Many modern societies overcome this problem through well-functioning top-down formal enforcement institutions. In the experimental setting of the public goods game, we compare a strong and weak exogenous centralized incentive system with a decentralized incentive system in the case of Georgia. Our experimental evidence suggests that in Georgia, self-governed groups are doomed to suffer from high inefficiencies under a decentralized peer-to-peer punishment incentive system. They are better off when punishment power is given to an external centralized authority that is not exposed to power abuse risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Mekvabishvili, Rati, 2023. "Decentralized or Centralized Governance in Social Dilemmas? Experimental Evidence from Georgia," MPRA Paper 117811, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:117811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/117811/1/Mekvabishvili%20R.%2C%20Decentralized%20or%20Centralized%20Governance%20in%20Social%20dilemmas%20-%20Experimental%20Evidence%20from%20Georgia.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey Carpenter & Shachar Kariv & Andrew Schotter, 2012. "Network architecture, cooperation and punishment in public good experiments," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(2), pages 93-118, September.
    2. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    3. Nikiforakis, Nikos, 2008. "Punishment and counter-punishment in public good games: Can we really govern ourselves," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 91-112, February.
    4. Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2012. "Promoting Cooperation: the Distribution of Reward and Punishment Power," Discussion Papers 2012-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. 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.
    6. Qin, Xiangdong & Wang, Siyu, 2013. "Using an exogenous mechanism to examine efficient probabilistic punishment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Florian Engl & Arno Riedl & Roberto Weber, 2021. "Spillover Effects of Institutions on Cooperative Behavior, Preferences, and Beliefs," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 261-299, November.
    8. Andreoni, James & Gee, Laura K., 2012. "Gun for hire: Delegated enforcement and peer punishment in public goods provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(11), pages 1036-1046.
    9. Simon Gachter & Ernst Fehr, 2000. "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 980-994, September.
    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. Daniela Grieco & Marco Faillo & Luca Zarri, 2013. "Top Contributors as Punishers," Working Papers 24/2013, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    2. José Gabriel Castillo & Zhicheng Phil Xu & Ping Zhang & Xianchen Zhu, 2021. "The effects of centralized power and institutional legitimacy on collective action," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 385-419, February.
    3. Grieco, Daniela & Faillo, Marco & Zarri, Luca, 2017. "Enforcing cooperation in public goods games: Is one punisher enough?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 55-73.
    4. Goeschl, Timo & Haberl, Beatrix & Soldà, Alice, 2023. "How to Organize Monitoring and Punishment: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 0737, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    5. Thomas Markussen & Louis Putterman & Liangjun Wang, 2017. "Governing Collective Action in the Face of Observational Error," Working Papers 2017-2, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    6. Falvey, Rod & Lane, Tom & Luckraz, Shravan, 2025. "On a mechanism that improves efficiency and reduces inequality in voluntary contribution games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 518-536.
    7. Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2012. "Promoting Cooperation: the Distribution of Reward and Punishment Power," Discussion Papers 2012-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    8. Nicklisch, Andreas & Grechenig, Kristoffel & Thöni, Christian, 2016. "Information-sensitive Leviathans," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-13.
    9. Xu, Xue, 2018. "Experiments on cooperation, institutions, and social preferences," Other publications TiSEM d3cf4dba-b0f3-4643-a267-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Choi, Jung-Kyoo & Ahn, T.K., 2013. "Strategic reward and altruistic punishment support cooperation in a public goods game experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 17-30.
    11. Boosey, Luke & Mark Isaac, R., 2016. "Asymmetric network monitoring and punishment in public goods experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PA), pages 26-41.
    12. Gangadharan, Lata & Nikiforakis, Nikos & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2017. "Normative conflict and the limits of self-governance in heterogeneous populations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 143-156.
    13. De Geest, Lawrence R. & Kingsley, David C., 2019. "Endowment heterogeneity, incomplete information & institutional choice in public good experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    14. Laura K. Gee & Xinxin Lyu & Heather Urry, 2017. "Anger Management: Aggression and Punishment in the Provision of Public Goods," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-28, January.
    15. Tan, Fangfang & Xiao, Erte, 2018. "Third-party punishment: Retribution or deterrence?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 34-46.
    16. Eugen Dimant & Tobias Gesche, 2021. "Nudging Enforcers: How Norm Perceptions and Motives for Lying Shape Sanctions," CESifo Working Paper Series 9385, CESifo.
    17. Ganga Shreedhar, Alessandro Tavoni, Carmen Marchiori, 2018. "Monitoring and punishment networks in a common-pool resource dilemma: experimental evidence," GRI Working Papers 292, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    18. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Mill, Wladislaw, 2020. "Conditional cooperation and the effect of punishment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 150-172.
    19. Andrweas Leibbrandt & Abhijit Ramalingam & Lauri Sääksvuori & James M. Walker, 2012. "Broken Punishment Networks in Public Goods Games: Experimental Evidence," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-004, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    20. Koch, Christian & Nikiforakis, Nikos & Noussair, Charles N., 2021. "Covenants before the swords: The limits to efficient cooperation in heterogeneous groups," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 307-321.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:pra:mprapa:117811. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.