• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
The effectiveness of relative performance evaluation schemes, such as yardstick competition, can be undermined by collusion. The degree to which the regulated agents manage to collude will be affected by the particulars of the scheme. We hypothesize that in a repeated game setting schemes will be more prone to collusion the smaller are the rents to the agents in case they behave non-cooperatively. We illustrate the relevance of this hypothesis by means of an economic experiment in which we compare the efficiency of two performance evaluation schemes.

Relative performance evaluation, yardstick competition, collusion, experiment

Abstract:
Numerous laboratory experiments show that workers reciprocate to high wages with high effort, when there is perfect information on the surplus created. Recent field experiments, however, suggest that trust and reciprocity may be lower or absent when the information is incomplete. We report a laboratory experiment with symmetric and asymmetric incomplete surplus information in a bilateral gift exchange setting. We find that trust and reciprocity have a significant positive effect on wages, effort and efficiency. But, all three are substantially lower under incomplete than under complete information. The negative impact on wages and efficiency is even greater with information asymmetry.

Trust, reciprocity, efficiency, incomplete information, asymmetric information

Abstract:
Providing public goods is hard, because providers are best off free-riding. Is it even harder if one group’s public good is a public bad for another group or, conversely, gives the latter a windfall profit? We experimentally study public goods provision embedded in a social context and find that in the absence of explicit norms externalities have almost no effect. With an endogenously formed provision norm positive as well as negative externalities dampen provision as compared to no externalities. We explain the surprisingly low provision under positive externalities by the providers’ increased risk of inequity and stress the importance of institutions sustaining conditional cooperation.

Public Good, Externality, Conditional Cooperation, Inequity Aversion, Norms

Abstract:
Considerable experimental evidence has been collected on how to solve the public-good dilemma. In a 'first generation' of experiments, this was done by presenting subjects with a pre-specified game out of a huge variety of rules. A 'second generation' of experiments introduced subjects to two different environments and had subjects choose between those. The present study is part of a 'third generation,' asking subjects not only to choose between two environments but to design their own rule sets for the public-good problem. Whereas preceding 'third-generation' experiments had subjects design and improve their strategies for a specified game, this study is the first to make an attempt at answering the question of how people would shape their environment to solve the public-good dilemma were they given full discretion over the rules of the game. We explore this question of endogenous institution design in an iterated design-and-play procedure. We observe a strong usage of punishment and redistribution components, which diminishes over time. Instead, subjects successfully contextualize the situation. Interestingly, feedback on fellow-players’ individual behavior tends to be rendered opaque. On average, rules do improve with respect to the welfare they elicit, albeit only to a limited degree.

Public good, strategy method, experiment, public choice