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. 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.
    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.
    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. Leonardo Fabio Morales & Mauricio Quiñones & Eleonora Dávalos & Luis Felipe Gaviria, 2024. "Spatial Spillover Effects in the Labor Market in a Middle-Income Country," Borradores de Economia 1283, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    2. Sylvie Thoron, 2016. "Morality Beyond Social Preferences: Smithian Sympathy, Social Neuroscience and the Nature of Social Consciousness [La moralité au delà des préférences sociales. La sympathie Smithienne, les neurosc," Post-Print hal-01645043, HAL.
    3. Jones, Martin K., 2015. "Values, Multiculturalism and Representations," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-31, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. 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.
    5. John A. List, 2007. "On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(3), pages 482-493.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/8642 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Ernesto Dal Bó & Marko Terviö, 2013. "Self-Esteem, Moral Capital, And Wrongdoing," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 599-663, June.
    11. Michael Burda & Daniel Hamermesh & Philippe Weil, 2013. "Total work and gender: facts and possible explanations," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 239-261, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Diogo Hildebrand & Yoshiko Demotta & Sankar Sen & Ana Valenzuela, 2017. "Consumer Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Contribution Type," Post-Print hal-01576949, HAL.
    14. Meyer, Leandro Fredrico Ferraz & Braga, Marcelo Jose, 2009. "Fear or Greed? Duty or Solidarity? Motivations and Stages of Moral Reasoning: Experimental Evidences from Public-Goods Provision Dilemmas," Working Papers in Applied Economics 53249, Universidade Federal de Vicosa, Departamento de Economia Rural.
    15. von Carnap-Bornheim, Tillmann, 2016. "Irrigation as a Determinant of Social Capital in India: A Large-Scale Survey Analysis," MPRA Paper 69270, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. 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.
    17. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2014. "Trust, but verify? When trustworthiness is observable only through (costly) monitoring," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 20, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    18. Chesney, Thomas & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert, 2009. "Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 618-635, October.
    19. Gächter, Simon & Herrmann, Benedikt, 2011. "The limits of self-governance when cooperators get punished: Experimental evidence from urban and rural Russia," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 193-210, February.
    20. Yasuyuki Sawada & Ryuji Kasahara & Keitaro Aoyagi & Masahiro Shoji & Mika Ueyama, 2013. "Modes of Collective Action in Village Economies: Evidence from Natural and Artefactual Field Experiments in a Developing Country," Asian Development Review, MIT Press, vol. 30(1), pages 31-51, March.
    21. Wang, Lu & Ye, Shun-qiang & Jones, Michael C. & Ye, Ye & Wang, Meng & Xie, Neng-gang, 2015. "The evolutionary analysis of the ultimatum game based on the net-profit decision," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 430(C), pages 32-38.

    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.