IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v165y2016icp152-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing peers: Homophily and polarization in groups

Author

Listed:
  • Baccara, Mariagiovanna
  • Yariv, Leeat

Abstract

This paper studies the formation of peer groups entailing the joint production of public goods. In our model agents choose their peers and have to pay a connection cost for each member added to the group. After groups are formed, each agent selects a public project to make a costly contribution to, and all members of the group experience the benefits of these contributions. Since agents differ in how much they value one project relative to the other, the group's preferences affect the generated profile of public goods. We characterize mutually optimal groups, groups that are optimal for all their members. When contribution costs are low relative to connection costs, mutually optimal groups must be sufficiently homogeneous. As contribution costs increase relative to connection costs, agents desire more connections, which in turn raises the risk of free riding. Extreme peers are then more appealing, since they are more willing to contribute, and polarization arises.

Suggested Citation

  • Baccara, Mariagiovanna & Yariv, Leeat, 2016. "Choosing peers: Homophily and polarization in groups," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 152-178.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:165:y:2016:i:c:p:152-178
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jet.2016.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002205311630014X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jet.2016.04.005?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yeon-Koo Che & Navin Kartik, 2009. "Opinions as Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 117(5), pages 815-860, October.
    2. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    3. Kets, Willemien & Sandroni, Alvaro, 2015. "Challenging Conformity: A Case for Diversity," MPRA Paper 68166, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Rajiv Sethi & Rohini Somanathan, 2004. "Inequality and Segregation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(6), pages 1296-1321, December.
    5. Tanya S. Rosenblat & Markus M. Mobius, 2004. "Getting Closer or Drifting Apart?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 971-1009.
    6. Paul W. Rhode & Koleman S. Strumpf, 2003. "Assessing the Importance of Tiebout Sorting: Local Heterogeneity from 1850 to 1990," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1648-1677, December.
    7. Ellickson, Bryan & Grodal, Birgit & Scotchmer, Suzanne & Zame, William R., 2001. "Clubs and the Market: Large Finite Economies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 40-77, November.
    8. Bryan Ellickson & Birgit Grodal & Suzanne Scotchmer & William R. Zame, 1999. "Clubs and the Market," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(5), pages 1185-1218, September.
    9. Sergio Currarini & Matthew O. Jackson & Paolo Pin, 2009. "An Economic Model of Friendship: Homophily, Minorities, and Segregation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1003-1045, July.
    10. Dino Gerardi & Leeat Yariv, 2008. "Costly Expertise," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 187-193, May.
    11. Mariagiovanna Baccara & Leeat Yariv, 2013. "Homophily in Peer Groups," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(3), pages 69-96, August.
    12. Andrea Robbett, 2014. "Local Institutions and the Dynamics of Community Sorting," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 136-156, August.
    13. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Randall P. Walsh, 2008. "Do People Vote with Their Feet? An Empirical Test of Tiebout," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 843-863, 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. John Duffy & Seung Han Yoo, 2022. "On the Origin of Polarization," Discussion Paper Series 2202, Institute of Economic Research, Korea University.
    2. Mihaela van der Schaar & Simpson Zhang, 2015. "From Acquaintances to Friends: Homophily and Learning in Networks," Papers 1510.08103, arXiv.org.
    3. Mürüvvet Büyükboyaci & Andrea Robbett, 2019. "Team formation with complementary skills," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 713-733, November.
    4. Patrick Allmis & Luca Paolo Merlino, 2023. "Homophily and Specialization in Networks," Papers 2312.00457, arXiv.org.
    5. Patrick Allmis, 2024. "Cohesion, Ideology, and Tolerance," Papers 2407.14045, arXiv.org.
    6. Kets, Willemien & Sandroni, Alvaro, 2019. "A belief-based theory of homophily," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 410-435.
    7. Schram, Peter, 2021. "Self-managing terror: Resolving agency problems with diverse teams," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 240-257.
    8. Henry L. Friedman & Mirko S. Heinle, 2020. "Influence Activities, Coalitions, and Uniform Policies: Implications for the Regulation of Financial Institutions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 4336-4358, September.
    9. John Asker & Mariagiovanna Baccara & SangMok Lee, 2021. "Patent auctions and bidding coalitions: structuring the sale of club goods," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(3), pages 662-690, September.

    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 Jehiel & Laurent Lamy, 2018. "A Mechanism Design Approach to the Tiebout Hypothesis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(2), pages 735-760.
    2. Gürerk, Özgür & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Rockenbach, Bettina, 2014. "On cooperation in open communities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 220-230.
    3. Nicolai V. Kuminoff & V. Kerry Smith & Christopher Timmins, 2010. "The New Economics of Equilibrium Sorting and its Transformational Role for Policy Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 16349, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Meng, Delong, 2021. "Learning from like-minded people," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 231-250.
    5. Hui-Chun Peng, 2021. "An experimental study on voluntary vs. compulsory provision of public goods under the vote-with-feet mechanism," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 1-19, April.
    6. Anke Gerber & Andreas Nicklisch & Stefan Voigt, 2013. "Strategic Choices for Redistribution and the Veil of Ignorance: Theory and Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 4423, CESifo.
    7. Nicolai V. Kuminoff & Jaren C. Pope, 2014. "Do “Capitalization Effects” For Public Goods Reveal The Public'S Willingness To Pay?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1227-1250, November.
    8. Christian A. L. Hilber, 2017. "The Economic Implications of House Price Capitalization: A Synthesis," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 45(2), pages 301-339, April.
    9. Dokow, Elad & Luque, Jaime, 2019. "Provision of local public goods in mixed income communities," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Lars-Erik Borge & Jan K. Brueckner & Jorn Rattso, 2012. "Partial Fiscal Decentralization and Public-Sector Heterogeneity: Theory and Evidence from Norway," CESifo Working Paper Series 3954, CESifo.
    11. Bhowmik, Anuj & Saha, Sandipan, 2023. "Restricted bargaining sets in a club economy," MPRA Paper 119210, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Allouch, Nizar & Conley, John P. & Wooders, Myrna, 2009. "Anonymous price taking equilibrium in Tiebout economies with a continuum of agents: Existence and characterization," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(9-10), pages 492-510, September.
    13. Wooders, Myrna, 2008. "Market games and clubs," MPRA Paper 33968, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Dec 2010.
    14. Nizar Allouch & Myrna Wooders, 2004. "Price Taking Equilibrium in Club Economies with Multiple Memberships and Unbounded Club Sizes," Working Papers 513, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    15. Rajiv Sethi & Muhamet Yildiz, 2012. "Public Disagreement," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 57-95, August.
    16. Howard, Greg & Ornaghi, Arianna, 2021. "Closing Time: The Local Equilibrium Effects of Prohibition," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(3), pages 792-830, September.
    17. Konishi, Hideo, 2008. "Tiebout's tale in spatial economies: Entrepreneurship, self-selection, and efficiency," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 461-477, September.
    18. Shin‐Kun Peng & Ping Wang, 2005. "Sorting by foot: ‘travel‐for’ local public goods and equilibrium stratification," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 1224-1252, November.
    19. Revelli, Federico, 2019. "The electoral migration cycle," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 461-482.
    20. Luque, Jaime, 2013. "Heterogeneous Tiebout communities with private production and anonymous crowding," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 117-123.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Homophily; Peer groups; Mutually optimal groups; Public goods; Tiebout;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation

    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:eee:jetheo:v:165:y:2016:i:c:p:152-178. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869 .

    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.