IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifhfob/325478.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Handwerk als Vertrauensgut - ein theoretischer Rahmen zur experimentellen Forschung

Author

Listed:
  • Meub, Lukas
  • Reher, Leonie
  • Erlei, Alexander
  • Beuchel, Sebastian

Abstract

Das Handwerk befindet sich in einem tiefgreifenden Prozess der digitalen Transformation, der sowohl Leistungsangebote als auch Marktstrukturen nachhaltig verändert. Diese Entwicklungen erzeugen einen erheblichen Forschungsbedarf für ein "Handwerk der Zukunft". Die vorliegende Studie beschreibt das Konzept der Vertrauensgütermärkte und begründet, warum dieses einen in der Verhaltensökonomik etablierten und theoretisch tragfähigen Analyserahmen für den Handwerksmarkt der Zukunft bietet. Vertrauensgütermärkte erfassen die Informationsasymmetrie zu Gunsten von Experten (Handwerkern) gegenüber den Kunden, welche häufig auch nach Leistungserbringung nicht oder nur unzureichend die Qualität der Leistung beurteilen können. So können die Wirkungen von Verhaltensänderungen der Betriebe und der Kunden sowie institutioneller und marktlicher Veränderungen präzise analysiert werden. Zukünftig von besonderem Forschungsinteresse ist der Bereich der Digitalisierung im Kontext der Konsumenteninformation, in dem große Veränderungen und potenziell tiefgreifende Verschiebungen der Informationsasymmetrien zugunsten der Konsumenten zu erwarten sind. Beispielsweise steigt der Informationsgrad der Kunden durch KI-Tools, die Einholung zweiter Meinungen wird erleichtert, und Bewertungen zu Experten können breit geteilt werden. Gleichwohl ist die Wirkung der Digitalisierung auf die Informationslage der Experten bisher wenig erforscht, obwohl das daraus resultierende Investitions- und Innovationsverhalten für zukünftige Handwerksmärkte entscheidend sein dürfte. Vor diesem Hintergrund leitet die Studie vier zentrale Forschungsfelder ab: (1) die Entscheidungsrolle des Kunden im Kontext der digitalen Transformation und ihre heterogenen Effekte auf Marktprozesse im Handwerk, (2) die Dynamik technologischer Investitionen und Adaptionen von Handwerkern, insbesondere unter dem Einfluss algorithmischer Empfehlungen, (3) das Explorationsverhalten im Sinne von "learning by doing-using-interacting" und seine Implikationen für Qualitätssicherung und Informationsasymmetrien sowie (4) die Gestaltung regulatorischer Anforderungen, um Transparenz, Verlässlichkeit und Vertrauen in einem sich rasch wandelnden Marktumfeld zu gewährleisten.

Suggested Citation

  • Meub, Lukas & Reher, Leonie & Erlei, Alexander & Beuchel, Sebastian, 2025. "Handwerk als Vertrauensgut - ein theoretischer Rahmen zur experimentellen Forschung," ifh Forschungsberichte 31, Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifhfob:325478
    DOI: 10.47952/gro-publ-323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/325478/1/1935237470.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.47952/gro-publ-323?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Wiesen, Daniel, 2016. "Using artefactual field and lab experiments to investigate how fee-for-service and capitation affect medical service provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 17-23.
    2. Beck, Adrian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Qiu, Jianying & Sutter, Matthias, 2013. "Shaping beliefs in experimental markets for expert services: Guilt aversion and the impact of promises and money-burning options," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 145-164.
    3. Roman Inderst & Kiryl Khalmetski & Axel Ockenfels, 2019. "Sharing Guilt: How Better Access to Information May Backfire," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3322-3336, July.
    4. Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Selten, Reinhard & Wiesen, Daniel, 2011. "How payment systems affect physicians' provision behaviour--An experimental investigation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 637-646, July.
    5. Green, Ellen P., 2014. "Payment systems in the healthcare industry: An experimental study of physician incentives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 367-378.
    6. Santosh Anagol & Shawn Cole & Shayak Sarkar, 2017. "Understanding the Advice of Commissions-Motivated Agents: Evidence from the Indian Life Insurance Market," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(1), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Kandul, Serhiy & Lanz, Bruno & Reins, Evert, 2023. "Reciprocity and gift exchange in markets for credence goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 52-69.
    8. Tang, Johnny Jiahao, 2020. "Individual heterogeneity and cultural attitudes in credence goods provision," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    9. Rudolf Kerschbamer & Daniel Neururer & Matthias Sutter, 2019. "Credence goods markets and the informational value of new media: A natural field experiment," Working Papers 2019-02, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    10. Bindra, Parampreet Christopher & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Neururer, Daniel & Sutter, Matthias, 2021. "On the value of second opinions: A credence goods field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    11. Tinglong Dai & Shubhranshu Singh, 2020. "Conspicuous by Its Absence: Diagnostic Expert Testing Under Uncertainty," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 540-563, May.
    12. Huck, Steffen & Lünser, Gabriele & Spitzer, Florian & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2016. "Medical insurance and free choice of physician shape patient overtreatment: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 78-105.
    13. Mimra, Wanda & Rasch, Alexander & Waibel, Christian, 2016. "Price competition and reputation in credence goods markets: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 337-352.
    14. Schneider, Tim & Bizer, Kilian, 2017. "Expert qualification in markets for expert services: A Sisyphean Task?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 323, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    15. Felix Gottschalk & Wanda Mimra & Christian Waibe, 2020. "Health Services as Credence Goods: a Field Experiment," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(629), pages 1346-1383.
    16. Ben Greiner & Le Zhang & Chengxiang Tang, 2017. "Separation of prescription and treatment in health care markets: A laboratory experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 21-35, December.
    17. Rudolf Kerschbamer & Daniel Neururer & Matthias Sutter, 2016. "Insurance coverage of customers induces dishonesty of sellers in markets for credence goods," Natural Field Experiments 00639, The Field Experiments Website.
    18. Henry S. Schneider, 2012. "Agency Problems and Reputation in Expert Services: Evidence from Auto Repair," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 406-433, September.
    19. Schneider, Tim & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2021. "Consumer information in a market for expert services: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    20. Daniel Aobdia & Saad Siddiqui & Andres Vinelli, 2021. "Heterogeneity in expertise in a credence goods setting: evidence from audit partners," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 693-729, June.
    21. James W. Roberts, 2011. "Can Warranties Substitute for Reputations?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 69-85, August.
    22. Green, Ellen P. & Kloosterman, Andrew, 2022. "Agent sorting by incentive systems in mission firms: Implications for healthcare and other credence goods markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 408-429.
    23. Felix Gottschalk & Wanda Mimra & Christian Waibel, 2020. "Health Services as Credence Goods: a Field Experiment," Post-Print hal-03137768, HAL.
    24. Beuchel, Sebastian & Jantos, Louisa & Meub, Lukas, 2024. "Digitalisierung im Handwerk zwischen Zettelwirtschaft und KI: Eine Status Quo-Analyse," ifh Forschungsberichte 23, Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh).
    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. Balafoutas, Loukas & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2020. "Credence goods in the literature: What the past fifteen years have taught us about fraud, incentives, and the role of institutions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    2. Silvia Angerer & Daniela Glätzle‐Rützler & Christian Waibel, 2021. "Monitoring institutions in healthcare markets: Experimental evidence," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 951-971, May.
    3. Iman Ahmadi, 2023. "Face/Off: The adverse effects of increased competition," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 183-279, June.
    4. Ben Greiner & Le Zhang & Chengxiang Tang, 2017. "Separation of prescription and treatment in health care markets: A laboratory experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 21-35, December.
    5. Loukas Balafoutas & Helena Fornwagner & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter & Maryna Tverdostup, 2020. "Diagnostic Uncertainty and Insurance Coverage in Credence Goods Markets," Working Papers 2020-21, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    6. Katharina Momsen & Markus Ohndorf, 2022. "Seller Opportunism in Credence Good Markets – The Role of Market Conditions," Working Papers 2022-10, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    7. Jeannette Brosig‐Koch & Burkhard Hehenkamp & Johanna Kokot, 2023. "Who benefits from quality competition in health care? A theory and a laboratory experiment on the relevance of patient characteristics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(8), pages 1785-1817, August.
    8. Angerer, Silvia & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Waibel, Christian, 2023. "Framing and subject pool effects in healthcare credence goods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    9. Silvia Angerer & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Christian Waibel, 2021. "Trust in health care credence goods: Experimental evidence on framing and subject pool effects," Working Papers 2021-13, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    10. Kandul, Serhiy & Lanz, Bruno & Reins, Evert, 2023. "Reciprocity and gift exchange in markets for credence goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 52-69.
    11. Jeannette Brosig-Koch & Mona Groß & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Nadja Kairies-Schwarz & Daniel Wiesen, 2025. "Physicians’ incentives, patients’ characteristics, and quality of care: a systematic experimental comparison of performance-pay systems," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 217-243, June.
    12. Gerlach, Heiko & Li, Junqian, 2022. "Experts, trust and competition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 552-578.
    13. Huck, Steffen & Lünser, Gabriele & Spitzer, Florian & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2016. "Medical insurance and free choice of physician shape patient overtreatment: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 78-105.
    14. Parampreet Christopher Bindra & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Daniel Neururer & Matthias Sutter, 2020. "Reveal it or conceal it: On the value of second opinions in a low-entry-barriers credence goods market," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_11, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    15. Green, Ellen P. & Kloosterman, Andrew, 2022. "Agent sorting by incentive systems in mission firms: Implications for healthcare and other credence goods markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 408-429.
    16. Massimo Finocchiaro Castro & Calogero Guccio & Domenica Romeo, 2024. "Looking inside the lab: a systematic literature review of economic experiments in health service provision," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(7), pages 1177-1204, September.
    17. Angelova, Vera & Regner, Tobias, 2018. "Can a bonus overcome moral hazard? Experimental evidence from markets for expert services," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 362-378.
    18. Evert Reins, 2021. "Seductive subsidies? An analysis of second-degree moral hazard in the context of photovoltaic solar systems," IRENE Working Papers 21-03, IRENE Institute of Economic Research.
    19. Alexander Erlei, 2025. "From Digital Distrust to Codified Honesty: Experimental Evidence on Generative AI in Credence Goods Markets," Papers 2509.06069, arXiv.org.
    20. Schneider, Tim & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2021. "Consumer information in a market for expert services: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:zbw:ifhfob:325478. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifgoede.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.