IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gewipr/261101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Planspiele als experimentelle Methode der Politikfolgenabschätzung: Das Beispiel der Stickstoffextensivierung

Author

Listed:
  • Mußhoff, O.
  • Hirschauer, N.

Abstract

Bei der Abschätzung der Folgen verhaltenssteuernder politischer Maßnahmen mit Hilfe von Rational- Choice-Modellen, die von der Verhaltensannahme eines vollständig informierten und ausschließlich gewinnmaximierenden homo oeconomicus ausgehen, besteht die Gefahr, dass Art und Geschwindigkeit des Anpassungsverhaltens an veränderte Rahmenbedingungen falsch eingeschätzt werden. Vor diesem Hintergrund geht die vorliegende Untersuchung zwei Fragen nach: Erstens, können die bisher hauptsächlich zu Lehrzwecken verwendeten Unternehmensplanspiele so angepasst werden, dass sie als kostengünstige experimentelle Methode für die Politikfolgenabschätzung einsetzbar sind? Zweitens, können durch die explorative Durchführung von Planspielen mit „Convenience Groups“ (z.B. Studierenden) Hinweise auf Verhaltensmuster gewonnen werden, denen man im Rahmen spezifischerer Studien nachgehen sollte? In dem hier beschriebenen mehrperiodischen Planspiel leiten die Teilnehmer ein landwirtschaftliches Unternehmen und werden mit verschiedenen Politikmaßnahmen zur Stickstoffreduzierung konfrontiert. Die studentischen Planspielunternehmer reagieren sehr unterschiedlich auf die verschiedenen Maßnahmen, obwohl sich diese in ihrer Gewinnwirksamkeit nicht unterscheiden. Dies ist ein Hinweis, dass die je Euro Steuermittel erzielbaren Verhaltensänderungen und damit die Kosteneffizienz (und Smartness) staatlicher Maßnahmen maßgeblich von ihrem konkreten Design abhängen.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Mußhoff, O. & Hirschauer, N., 2013. "Planspiele als experimentelle Methode der Politikfolgenabschätzung: Das Beispiel der Stickstoffextensivierung," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 48, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewipr:261101
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.261101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261101/files/Bd48Nr29.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/261101/files/Bd48Nr29.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.261101?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Teresa Serra & David Zilberman & José M. Gil, 2008. "Differential uncertainties and risk attitudes between conventional and organic producers: the case of Spanish arable crop farmers," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 219-229, September.
    2. Bruno S. Frey & Reto Jegen, 2000. "Motivation Crowding Theory: A Survey of Empirical Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 245, CESifo.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    4. F. Stuart Chapin III & Erika S. Zavaleta & Valerie T. Eviner & Rosamond L. Naylor & Peter M. Vitousek & Heather L. Reynolds & David U. Hooper & Sandra Lavorel & Osvaldo E. Sala & Sarah E. Hobbie & Mic, 2000. "Consequences of changing biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 234-242, May.
    5. Matthias Benz, "undated". "Entrepreneurship as a non-profit-seeking activity," IEW - Working Papers 243, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    6. Bruno S. Frey & Reto Jegen, 2001. "Motivation Crowding Theory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 589-611, December.
    7. Colin Kirkpatrick & David Parker (ed.), 2007. "Regulatory Impact Assessment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3846.
    8. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    9. Fehr, Ernst & Gachter, Simon, 1998. "Reciprocity and economics: The economic implications of Homo Reciprocans1," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 845-859, May.
    10. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    11. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    12. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Schilizzi, Steven & Breustedt, Gunnar, 2011. "Auctioning Outcome-Based Conservation Contracts," 51st Annual Conference, Halle, Germany, September 28-30, 2011 114523, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    13. G. A. A. Wossink, 2003. "Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent participation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 30(4), pages 461-485, December.
    14. Gary Burtless, 1995. "The Case for Randomized Field Trials in Economic and Policy Research," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 63-84, Spring.
    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. Moser, S. & Mußhoff, O., 2015. "Reward, Punishment and Probabilities in Policy Measurements: An Extra Laboratory Experiment about Effectiveness and Efficiency of Incentives in Palm Oil Production," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    2. Moser, Stefan & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2014. "Reward, punishment and probabilities in policy measurements: An extra laboratory experiment about effectiveness and efficiency of incentives in palm oil production," 54th Annual Conference, Goettingen, Germany, September 17-19, 2014 187432, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    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. Norbert Hirschauer & Oliver Mußhoff, 2012. "Smarte Regulierung in der Ernährungswirtschaft durch Name-and-Shame," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(4), pages 163-182.
    2. Dörschner, T. & Musshoff, O., 2015. "How do incentive-based environmental policies affect environment protection initiatives of farmers? An experimental economic analysis using the example of species richness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 90-103.
    3. Matthias Buchholz & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "Tax or green nudge? An experimental analysis of pesticide policies in Germany [A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 940-982.
    4. Buchholz, Matthias & Holst, Gesa & Musshoff, Oliver, 2015. "Water and irrigation policy impact assessment using business simulation games: evidence from northern Germany," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260781, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    5. Miroslava Bavorová & Norbert Hirschauer & Gaetano Martino, 2014. "Food safety and network governance structure of the agri-food system," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 1-11, February.
    6. Krysiak, Frank C. & Oberauner, Iris Maria, 2010. "Environmental policy à la carte: Letting firms choose their regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 221-232, November.
    7. Maria Claudia Lopez & James J. Murphy & John M. Spraggon & John K. Stranlund, 2013. "Does government regulation complement existing community efforts to support cooperation? Evidence from field experiments in Colombia," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 12, pages 346-366, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Servátka, Maroš & Tucker, Steven & Vadovič, Radovan, 2011. "Words speak louder than money," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 700-709.
    9. Goette, Lorenz & Stutzer, Alois, 2020. "Blood donations and incentives: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 52-74.
    10. Martinsson, Peter & Villegas-Palacio, Clara, 2010. "Does disclosure crowd out cooperation?," Working Papers in Economics 446, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    11. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Design of substrate supply contracts for biogas plants," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124428, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Velez, Maria Alejandra & Stranlund, John K. & Murphy, James J., 2009. "What motivates common pool resource users? Experimental evidence from the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 485-497, June.
    13. Hanna J. Ihli & Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Oliver Musshoff, 2014. "Does timing matter? A real options experiment to farmers' investment and disinvestment behaviours," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(3), pages 430-452, July.
    14. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    15. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Matter? Evidence from Rural Uganda," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 158146, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    16. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2012. "Präferenzen von Landwirten bei der Gestaltung von Substratlieferverträgen für Biogasanlagen: Ein Choice-Experiment," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 61(3).
    17. Schwarze, Jan & Holst, Gesa Sophie & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2014. "Do farmers act like perfectly rational profit maximisers? Results of an extra-laboratory experiment," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 4(1), October.
    18. Holst, Gesa S. & Mußhoff, Oliver & Dörschner, Till, 2013. "PR - Policy Impact Analysis Of Penalty And Reward Scenarios To Promote Flower Strips Using A Business Simulation Game," 19th Congress, Warsaw, Poland, 2013 345670, International Farm Management Association.
    19. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Affect Risk Preference Outcomes? Evidence from Rural Uganda," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    20. Holst, Gesa Sophie & Musshoff, Oliver, 2014. "Policy impact analysis of penalty and reward scenarios to promote flower-ing cover crops using a business simulation game," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182798, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:ags:gewipr:261101. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gewisea.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.