IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/pbudge/v44y2024i1p60-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Budget starting position matters: A “field‐in‐lab” experiment testing simulation engagement and budgetary preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Zach Mohr
  • Whitney Afonso

Abstract

Budget scholars have long theorized the impact of citizen engagement in the budget process. However, there is a void in the literature on modern types of engagement such as online budget simulations. Basic questions like what governments can do to increase the level of engagement and what effects such changes have on outcomes remain unanswered. Using a behavioral public budget and finance framework, we designed and tested an experiment with a local government budget simulation and varied the starting condition between balance, surplus, and deficit to assess the impact of starting condition on relevant outcomes of engagement and budgetary preferences. Results show that two measures of engagement and most budget preferences were influenced by the starting condition. Field‐in‐lab experiments like this one have the potential to further develop behavioral budget theory and be used to test online government platforms that are used by governments for engagement and many other purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • Zach Mohr & Whitney Afonso, 2024. "Budget starting position matters: A “field‐in‐lab” experiment testing simulation engagement and budgetary preferences," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 60-80, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:pbudge:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:60-80
    DOI: 10.1111/pbaf.12351
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/pbaf.12351
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/pbaf.12351?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. Susan Tanaka, 2007. "Engaging the Public in National Budgeting: A Non-governmental Perspective," OECD Journal on Budgeting, OECD Publishing, vol. 7(2), pages 139-177.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    4. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, December.
    5. Broockman, David E. & Kalla, Joshua L. & Sekhon, Jasjeet S., 2017. "The Design of Field Experiments With Survey Outcomes: A Framework for Selecting More Efficient, Robust, and Ethical Designs," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(4), pages 435-464, October.
    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. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Lisa A. Robinson & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Behavioral Economics and Regulatory Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1408-1422, September.
    3. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    4. Xingrong Hou & Jianmin Zeng & Hong Chen & Li Su, 2019. "The endowment effect in the genes: An exploratory study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 293-298, May.
    5. van Rooij, Maarten C.J. & Kool, Clemens J.M. & Prast, Henriette M., 2007. "Risk-return preferences in the pension domain: Are people able to choose?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3-4), pages 701-722, April.
    6. Möllenkamp, Meilin & Zeppernick, Maike & Schreyögg, Jonas, 2019. "The effectiveness of nudges in improving the self-management of patients with chronic diseases: A systematic literature review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(12), pages 1199-1209.
    7. repec:ehl:lserod:33114 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Mark Pingle, 2022. "Addressing threats like Covid: why we will tend to over-react and how we can do better," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 21(1), pages 9-23, June.
    9. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    10. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    11. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    12. Ritika & Nawal Kishor, 2020. "Development and validation of behavioral biases scale: a SEM approach," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 237-259, November.
    13. Louis Lévy-Garboua & Claude Montmarquette, 1996. "Cognition In Seemingly Riskless Choices And Judgments," Rationality and Society, , vol. 8(2), pages 167-185, May.
    14. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    15. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    16. 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.
    17. Patricia Tovar, 2004. "The Effects of Loss Aversion on Trade Policy and the Anti-Trade Bias Puzzle," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 499, Econometric Society.
    18. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:768-796 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Jona Linde & Joep Sonnemans, 2012. "Social comparison and risky choices," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 45-72, February.
    20. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    21. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    22. Manel Baucells & Cristina Rata, 2006. "A Survey Study of Factors Influencing Risk-Taking Behavior in Real-World Decisions Under Uncertainty," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 163-176, 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:bla:pbudge:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:60-80. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0275-1100 .

    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.