IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jinsec/v16y2020i5p731-746_11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Money or in-kind gift? Evidence from red packets in China

Author

Listed:
  • Hudik, Marek
  • Fang, Eddy S.

Abstract

In Western societies, in-kind gifts are generally more common than money gifts. However, exchange of in-kind gifts potentially involves inefficiency. Several models have been suggested to explain the in-kind gift-giving practice as a rational behaviour under certain assumptions about givers’ preferences and information and/or technological constraints. Unlike many Western societies, China has a long tradition of money gift-giving. So-called red packets are commonly exchanged. We argue that models developed to rationalise Western norms of gift-giving cannot fully account for Chinese gift-giving practices, and some Chinese practices even contradict existing theories. We collect Chinese household data through two surveys to establish stylised facts about gift-giving. We find that money gifts are commonly appropriate, depending on the occasion and relationship between givers and receivers. Moreover, for every occasion and relationship, money is more appropriate than gift vouchers. Finally, unlike studies focusing on Western gift-giving, our study finds no evidence that givers need to compensate receivers with higher value when giving money gifts rather than in-kind gifts. Our results are consistent with the view that the acceptability of money vis-à-vis in-kind gifts is governed primarily by social convention rather than information and technological constraints or the specific preferences of givers.

Suggested Citation

  • Hudik, Marek & Fang, Eddy S., 2020. "Money or in-kind gift? Evidence from red packets in China," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(5), pages 731-746, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:16:y:2020:i:5:p:731-746_11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137419000717/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Nicholas A. & Sabat, Isaac E. & Martinez, Larry R. & Weaver, Kayla & Xu, Shi, 2015. "A Convenient Solution: Using MTurk To Sample From Hard-To-Reach Populations," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 220-228, June.
    2. Henrich, Joseph & Boyd, Robert & Bowles, Samuel & Camerer, Colin & Fehr, Ernst & Gintis, Herbert (ed.), 2004. "Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199262052.
    3. Robben, Henry S. J. & Verhallen, Theo M. M., 1994. "Behavioral costs as determinants of cost perception and preference formation for gifts to receive and gifts to give," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 333-350, June.
    4. Waldfogel, Joel, 1993. "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1328-1336, December.
    5. Heikkila, Eric J., 2011. "An information perspective on path dependence," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 23-45, March.
    6. H. Peyton Young, 1996. "The Economics of Convention," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 105-122, Spring.
    7. Woo, Sang Eun & Keith, Melissa & Thornton, Meghan A., 2015. "Amazon Mechanical Turk for Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Advantages, Challenges, and Practical Recommendations," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 171-179, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Boou Chen & Chunkai Zhao, 2021. "Poverty reduction in rural China: Does the digital finance matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Nie, Peng & Li, Qiaoge & Ding, Lanlin & Sousa-Poza, Alfonso, 2023. "Housing Unaffordability and Adolescent Academic Achievement in Urban China," IZA Discussion Papers 16386, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Jeremy Kwok Frsa, "undated". "An institutional economic perspective on management in Chinese cultural contexts," Review of Socio - Economic Perspectives 202305, Reviewsep.
    4. Daum-Avital, Liora & Azar, Ofer H., 2023. "Courtesy versus efficiency: Personal gifts and monetary gifts – Preferences and norms in Israeli society," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    5. Angela Ambrosino & Paolo Silvestri, 2020. "Hodgson: An Institution Across Disciplinary Barriers," Annals of the Fondazione Luigi Einaudi. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Economics, History and Political Science, Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Torino (Italy), vol. 54(2), pages 329-348, December.

    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. Bradler, Christiane & Neckermann, Susanne, 2016. "The magic of the personal touch: Field experimental evidence on money appreciation as gifts," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-043, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Jeroen van de Ven, 2002. "The Demand for Social Approval and Status as a Motivation to Give," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 158(3), pages 464-482, September.
    3. Batista, Catia & Silverman, Dan & Yang, Dean, 2015. "Directed giving: Evidence from an inter-household transfer experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 2-21.
    4. Christiane Bradler & Susanne Neckermann, 2019. "The Magic of the Personal Touch: Field Experimental Evidence on Money and Appreciation as Gifts," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1189-1221, July.
    5. Jiamin Yin & Yansu Wang & Jun Pang & Kanliang Wang, 2020. "Customizing products for self versus close others: the effect of intended recipient on creator perceptions of product uniqueness," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 73-87, March.
    6. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus, 2009. "Time is not money," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 96-102, October.
    7. Maarten C.W. Janssen, 1997. "Focal Points," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 97-091/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    8. Fabian Kosse & Thomas Deckers & Pia Pinger & Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch & Armin Falk, 2020. "The Formation of Prosociality: Causal Evidence on the Role of Social Environment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(2), pages 434-467.
    9. John List & Jason Shogren, 1998. "The Deadweight Loss from Christmas: Comment," Artefactual Field Experiments 00531, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. Coleman, S., 2010. "Russian Election Reform and the Effect of Social Conformity on Voting and the Party System: 2007 and 2008," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 5, pages 73-90.
    11. Ehmke, Mariah & Lusk, Jayson & Tyner, Wallace, 2010. "Multidimensional tests for economic behavior differences across cultures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-45, January.
    12. Ball, Richard, 2017. "Violations of monotonicity in evolutionary models with sample-based beliefs," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 100-104.
    13. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    14. Thomas K. Bauer & Christoph M. Schmidt, 2008. "WTP vs.WTA: Christmas Presents and the Endowment Effect," Ruhr Economic Papers 0075, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    15. David Schüller & Thorsten Upmann, 2013. "When Focal Points are Out of Focus: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Come Dine with Me," CESifo Working Paper Series 4138, CESifo.
    16. Grubb, Farley, 2000. "The Statutory Regulation of Colonial Servitude: An Incomplete-Contract Approach," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 42-75, January.
    17. Carl Lyttkens, 2009. "Why the econometrician is in good spirits: a workshop through the looking glass," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(3), pages 239-242, July.
    18. Laura Birg & Anna Goeddeke, 2016. "Christmas Economics—A Sleigh Ride," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(4), pages 1980-1984, October.
    19. Pamela Jakiela & Edward Miguel & Vera Velde, 2015. "You’ve earned it: estimating the impact of human capital on social preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 385-407, September.
    20. George Liagouras, 2016. "From Heterodox Political Economy to Generalized Darwinism," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 48(3), pages 467-484, September.

    More about this item

    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:cup:jinsec:v:16:y:2020:i:5:p:731-746_11. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/joi .

    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.