IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/vfsc23/277698.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Rebate rules in reward-based crowdfunding: Introducing the bid-cap rule

Author

Listed:
  • Gerstmeier, Fabian
  • Oezcelik, Yigit
  • Tolksdorf, Michel

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerstmeier, Fabian & Oezcelik, Yigit & Tolksdorf, Michel, 2023. "Rebate rules in reward-based crowdfunding: Introducing the bid-cap rule," VfS Annual Conference 2023 (Regensburg): Growth and the "sociale Frage" 277698, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc23:277698
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/277698/1/vfs-2023-pid-87347.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Roland Strausz, 2017. "A Theory of Crowdfunding: A Mechanism Design Approach with Demand Uncertainty and Moral Hazard," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(6), pages 1430-1476, June.
    3. Marks, Melanie & Croson, Rachel, 1998. "Alternative rebate rules in the provision of a threshold public good: An experimental investigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 195-220, February.
    4. Joyee Deb & Aniko Oery & Kevin R. Williams, 2018. "Aiming for the Goal: Contribution Dynamics of Crowdfunding," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2149R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Jan 2021.
    5. Smith, Vernon L, 1980. "Experiments with a Decentralized Mechanism for Public Good Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(4), pages 584-599, 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. Fabian Gerstmeier & Yigit Oezcelik & Michel Tolksdorf, 2023. "Rebate rules in reward-based crowdfunding: Introducing the bid-cap rule," Working Papers 202304, University of Liverpool, Department of Economics.
    2. Claudia Niemeyer & Timm Teubner & Margeret Hall & Christof Weinhardt, 2018. "The Impact of Dynamic Feedback and Personal Budgets on Arousal and Funding Behaviour in Participatory Budgeting," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 611-636, August.
    3. Spencer, Michael A. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Shogren, Jason F. & List, John A., 2009. "Rebate rules in threshold public good provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(5-6), pages 798-806, June.
    4. Cason, Timothy N. & Zubrickas, Robertas, 2019. "Donation-based crowdfunding with refund bonuses," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 452-471.
    5. Gailmard, Sean & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2005. "An experimental comparison of collective choice procedures for excludable public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1361-1398, August.
    6. Matthew Ellman & Michele Fabi, 2022. "A Theory of Crowdfunding Dynamics," Working Papers 1349, Barcelona School of Economics.
    7. Boyarchenko, Svetlana, 2021. "Inefficiency of sponsored research," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    8. Erik Ansink & Mark Koetse & Jetske Bouma & Dominic Hauck & Daan van Soest, 2017. "Crowdfunding public goods: An experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-119/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Portillo, Javier E., 2019. "Land-assembly and externalities: How do positive post-development externalities affect land aggregation outcomes?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 104-124.
    10. Tibor Neugebauer & Stefan Traub, 2012. "Public good and private good valuation for waiting time reduction: a laboratory study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(1), pages 35-57, June.
    11. Wendelin Schnedler & Nina Lucia Stephan, 2020. "Revisiting a Remedy Against Chains of Unkindness," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 72(3), pages 347-364, July.
    12. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    13. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    14. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    15. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    16. Julien Jacob & Eve-Angéline Lambert & Mathieu Lefebvre & Sarah Driessche, 2023. "Information disclosure under liability: an experiment on public bads," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(1), pages 155-197, July.
    17. Gächter, Simon & Starmer, Chris & Tufano, Fabio, 2022. "Measuring "Group Cohesion" to Reveal the Power of Social Relationships in Team Production," IZA Discussion Papers 15512, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. David M. McEvoy & James J. Murphy & John M. Spraggon & John K. Stranlund, 2011. "The problem of maintaining compliance within stable coalitions: experimental evidence," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 475-498, July.
    19. Cornaglia, Francesca & Drouvelis, Michalis & Masella, Paolo, 2019. "Competition and the role of group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 136-145.
    20. Gantner, Anita & Horn, Kristian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Fair and efficient division through unanimity bargaining when claims are subjective," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 56-73.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative 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:zbw:vfsc23:277698. 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/vfsocea.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.