IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Economic Relevance of the Principle of Gratuitousness



In this paper the principle of gratuitousness and its relationships with other principles which motivate behaviour, such as those inspired by reciprocity, is analyzed. The basic premise is that gratuitousness is a feature acquired by an action by virtue of the intentions that inspire the action itself. In this respect, the search for gratuitousness may require to discriminate among aestetically equivalent actions on the basis of the psychological disposition of the actor. The main claim of the paper is that in economically relevant situations gratuituousness is to be conceived as a modality of cooperation, emerging as the outcome of a team reasoning perspective and motivating such a perspective without any need for reciprocity. This claim is analyzed with regard to blood donations and, more generally, with regard to the voluntary provision of goods.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergio Beraldo, 2015. "On the Economic Relevance of the Principle of Gratuitousness," CSEF Working Papers 398, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
  • Handle: RePEc:sef:csefwp:398

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Bacharach, Michael, 1999. "Interactive team reasoning: A contribution to the theory of co-operation," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 117-147, June.
    2. Belk, Russell W & Coon, Gregory S, 1993. "Gift Giving as Agapic Love: An Alternative to the Exchange Paradigm Based on Dating Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 393-417, December.
    3. Laffont, Jean-Jacques, 1975. "Macroeconomic Constraints, Economic Efficiency and Ethics: An Introduction to Kantian Economics," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 42(168), pages 430-437, November.
    4. Robert Sugden, 2011. "Mutual advantage, conventions and team reasoning," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 58(1), pages 9-20, March.
    5. George A. Akerlof, 1982. "Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 97(4), pages 543-569.
    6. Tim Clutton-Brock, 2009. "Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies," Nature, Nature, vol. 462(7269), pages 51-57, November.
    7. Schotter, Andrew, 1979. "The Economics of Tipping and Gratuities: An Essay in Institution Assisted Micro-Economics," Working Papers 79-19, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    8. Michael Bacharach, 2006. "The Hi-Lo Paradox, from Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory," Introductory Chapters, in: Natalie Gold & Robert Sugden (ed.),Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory, Princeton University Press.
    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. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "What does “we” want? Team Reasoning, Game Theory, and Unselfish Behaviours," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(3), pages 311-332.
    2. Van Basshuysen, Philippe, 2021. "Rationality in games and institutions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112463, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Radzvilas, Mantas & Karpus, Jurgis, 2021. "Team reasoning without a hive mind," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 345-353.
    4. Elsenbroich, Corinna & Payette, Nicolas, 2020. "Choosing to cooperate: Modelling public goods games with team reasoning," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    5. Lorenzo Sacconi, 2011. "From individual responsibility to ÔsharedÕ social responsibilities: concepts for a new paradigm," Econometica Working Papers wp27, Econometica.
    6. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    7. Giovanni Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2016. "Does collective meditation foster trust and trustworthiness in an investment game?," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 63(4), pages 379-392, December.
    8. Ekaterina Melnik & Jean-Benoît Zimmermann, 2015. "The We and the I: The Logic of Voluntary Associations," Working Papers halshs-01109609, HAL.
    9. Newton, Jonathan, 2017. "Shared intentions: The evolution of collaboration," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 517-534.
    10. Alessandra Smerilli, 2012. "We-thinking and vacillation between frames: filling a gap in Bacharach’s theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 539-560, October.
    11. Sanjeev Goyal & Penélope Hernández & Guillem Martínez-Cánovas & Frédéric Moisan & Manuel Muñoz-Herrera & Angel Sánchez, 2021. "Integration and diversity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 387-413, June.
      • Goyal, S. & Hernández, P. & Muñnez-Cánovasz, G. & Moisan, F. & Muñoz-Herrera, M. & Sánchez, A., 2017. "Integration and Diversity," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1721, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
      • Sanjeev Goyal & Penélope Hernández & Guillem Martínez-Cánovas & Frederic Moisan & Manuel Muñoz-Herrera & Angel Sánchez, 2020. "Integration and Diversity," Post-Print hal-03188210, HAL.
      • Sanjeev Goyal & Penelope Hernandez & Guillem Martinez-Canovas & Frederic Moisan & Manuel Munoz-Herrera & Angel Sanchez, 2019. "Integration and Diversity," Working Papers 20190025, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Sep 2020.
      • Sanjeev Goyal & Pénélope Hernández & Guillem Martínez-Cánovas & Frédéric Moisan & Manuel Muñoz-Herrera & Ángel Sánchez, 2021. "Integration and diversity," Post-Print halshs-03051962, HAL.
    12. Wynn C. Stirling & Teppo Felin, 2016. "Satisficing, preferences, and social interaction: a new perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 279-308, August.
    13. To, Chester Kin-man & Yee, Rachel W.Y. & Mok, P.Y. & Chau, K.P. & Wong, Man Chong & Cheung, N.M., 2018. "Collaboration reasoning or social heuristics? Value proposition validity in omnium-gatherum business models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 550-559.
    14. Slim, Sadri, 2009. "Du refus de vente au don: une explication de la formation du prix par l´affect [From rejection of exchange to gift: regard as an explanation of prices]," MPRA Paper 15317, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 Apr 2009.
    15. Ingela Alger & Jörgen W. Weibull, 2017. "Strategic Behavior of Moralists and Altruists," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-21, September.
    16. Leonardo Becchetti & Giacomo Degli Antoni & Marco Faillo, 2009. "Common reason to believe and framing effect in the team reasoning theory: an experimental approach," Econometica Working Papers wp15, Econometica.
    17. Marco Faillo & Alessandra Smerilli & Robert Sugden, 2016. "Can a single theory explain coordination? An experiment on alternative modes of reasoning and the conditions under which they are used," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 16-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    18. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.
    19. Giovanni Di Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2019. "The Effects of Physical Activity on Social Interactions: The Case of Trust and Trustworthiness," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 20(1), pages 50-71, January.
    20. Lauren Larrouy & Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "Choosing in a Large World: The Role of Focal Points as a Mindshaping Device," Working Papers halshs-01923244, HAL.

    More about this item


    Gratuituousness; reciprocity; team reasoning;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers

    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:sef:csefwp:398. 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: Dr. Maria Carannante (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.