IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v12y2021i2p50-d572371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-Governance in Generalized Exchange. A Laboratory Experiment on the Structural Embeddedness of Peer Punishment

Author

Listed:
  • Georg Kanitsar

    (Institute for Sociology and Social Research, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Peer punishment is widely lauded as a decentralized solution to the problem of social cooperation. However, experimental evidence of its effectiveness primarily stems from public good structures. This paper explores peer punishment in another structural setting: a system of generalized exchange. In a laboratory experiment, a repeated four-player prisoner’s dilemma is arranged either in a public good structure or in a circular network of generalized exchange. The experimental results demonstrate that the merits of peer punishment do not extend to generalized exchange. In the public good, peer punishment was primarily altruistic, was sensitive to costs, and promoted cooperation. In generalized exchange, peer punishment was also altruistic and relatively frequent, but did not increase cooperation. While the dense punishment network underlying the public good facilitates norm enforcement, generalized exchange decreases control over norm violators and reduces the capacity of peer punishment. I conclude that generalized exchange systems require stronger forms of punishment to sustain social cooperation.

Suggested Citation

  • Georg Kanitsar, 2021. "Self-Governance in Generalized Exchange. A Laboratory Experiment on the Structural Embeddedness of Peer Punishment," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:12:y:2021:i:2:p:50-:d:572371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/12/2/50/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/12/2/50/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    2. Carpenter, Jeffrey P., 2007. "The demand for punishment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 522-542, April.
    3. Anderson, Christopher M. & Putterman, Louis, 2006. "Do non-strategic sanctions obey the law of demand? The demand for punishment in the voluntary contribution mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-24, January.
    4. David Masclet & Charles Noussair & Steven Tucker & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2003. "Monetary and Nonmonetary Punishment in the Voluntary Contributions Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 366-380, March.
    5. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    6. Nynke van Miltenburg & Wojtek Przepiorka & Vincent Buskens, 2017. "Consensual punishment does not promote cooperation in the six-person prisoner's dilemma game with noisy public monitoring," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    8. Boosey, Luke & Mark Isaac, R., 2016. "Asymmetric network monitoring and punishment in public goods experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PA), pages 26-41.
    9. Nikos Nikiforakis & Hans-Theo Normann, 2008. "A comparative statics analysis of punishment in public-good experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(4), pages 358-369, December.
    10. Louis Corriveau, 2012. "Game theory and the kula," Rationality and Society, , vol. 24(1), pages 106-128, February.
    11. Greiner, Ben & Vittoria Levati, M., 2005. "Indirect reciprocity in cyclical networks: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 711-731, October.
    12. Christine Horne & Anna Cutlip, 2002. "Sanctioning Costs and Norm Enforcement," Rationality and Society, , vol. 14(3), pages 285-307, August.
    13. Andreas Leibbrandt & Abhijit Ramalingam & Lauri Sääksvuori & James Walker, 2015. "Incomplete punishment networks in public goods games: experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(1), pages 15-37, March.
    14. Jeffrey Carpenter & Shachar Kariv & Andrew Schotter, 2012. "Network architecture, cooperation and punishment in public good experiments," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(2), pages 93-118, September.
    15. Gary Bornstein & Ori Weisel, 2010. "Punishment, Cooperation, and Cheater Detection in “Noisy” Social Exchange," Games, MDPI, vol. 1(1), pages 1-16, March.
    16. Engel, Christoph, 2014. "Social preferences can make imperfect sanctions work: Evidence from a public good experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 343-353.
    17. Matthias Cinyabuguma & Talbot Page & Louis Putterman, 2006. "Can second-order punishment deter perverse punishment?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(3), pages 265-279, September.
    18. Milena Tsvetkova & Michael W Macy, 2014. "The Social Contagion of Generosity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-9, February.
    19. Luke Boosey & R. Mark Isaac, 2014. "Network Monitoring and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," Working Papers wp2014_12_01, Department of Economics, Florida State University.
    20. Hisashi Ohtsuki & Yoh Iwasa & Martin A. Nowak, 2009. "Indirect reciprocity provides only a narrow margin of efficiency for costly punishment," Nature, Nature, vol. 457(7225), pages 79-82, January.
    21. Seinen, Ingrid & Schram, Arthur, 2006. "Social status and group norms: Indirect reciprocity in a repeated helping experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 581-602, April.
    22. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2004. "Social norms and human cooperation," Macroeconomics 0409026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    23. Ananish Chaudhuri, 2011. "Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(1), pages 47-83, March.
    24. Nikiforakis, Nikos & Noussair, Charles N. & Wilkening, Tom, 2012. "Normative conflict and feuds: The limits of self-enforcement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(9-10), pages 797-807.
    25. Klaus Abbink & Lata Gangadharan & Toby Handfield & John Thrasher, 2017. "Peer punishment promotes enforcement of bad social norms," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    26. Wayne E. Baker & Nathaniel Bulkley, 2014. "Paying It Forward vs. Rewarding Reputation: Mechanisms of Generalized Reciprocity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1493-1510, 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. Boosey, Luke & Mark Isaac, R., 2016. "Asymmetric network monitoring and punishment in public goods experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PA), pages 26-41.
    2. Weng, Qian & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2015. "Cooperation in teams: The role of identity, punishment, and endowment distribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 25-38.
    3. Nikiforakis, Nikos & Noussair, Charles N. & Wilkening, Tom, 2012. "Normative conflict and feuds: The limits of self-enforcement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(9-10), pages 797-807.
    4. Reuben, Ernesto & Riedl, Arno, 2013. "Enforcement of contribution norms in public good games with heterogeneous populations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 122-137.
    5. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann, 2008. "Reciprocity, culture, and human cooperation: Previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment," Discussion Papers 2008-14, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    6. Grieco, Daniela & Faillo, Marco & Zarri, Luca, 2017. "Enforcing cooperation in public goods games: Is one punisher enough?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 55-73.
    7. Michalis Drouvelis, 2015. "Alleviation and Sanctions in Social Dilemma Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-13, September.
    8. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann, 2008. "Reciprocity, culture, and human cooperation: Previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment," Discussion Papers 2008-14, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    9. Angelsen, Arild & Naime, Julia, 2024. "The mixed impacts of peer punishments on common-pool resources: Multi-country experimental evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    10. De Geest, Lawrence R. & Kingsley, David C., 2021. "Norm enforcement with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 403-430.
    11. Ramalingam, Abhijit & Godoy, Sara & Morales, Antonio J. & Walker, James M., 2016. "An individualistic approach to institution formation in public good games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 18-36.
    12. Stephen Cheung, 2014. "New insights into conditional cooperation and punishment from a strategy method experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(1), pages 129-153, March.
    13. Balafoutas, Loukas & Nikiforakis, Nikos, 2012. "Norm enforcement in the city: A natural field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1773-1785.
    14. Hoeft, Leonard & Mill, Wladislaw, 2024. "Abuse of power," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 305-324.
    15. KAMEI Kenju, 2022. "Self-regulatory Resources and Institutional Formation: A first experimental test," Discussion papers 22084, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    16. Sebastian Krügel & Matthias Uhl, 2023. "Internal whistleblowing systems without proper sanctions may backfire," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(8), pages 1355-1383, October.
    17. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Mill, Wladislaw, 2020. "Conditional cooperation and the effect of punishment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 150-172.
    18. Weber, Till O. & Schulz, Jonathan F. & Beranek, Benjamin & Lambarraa-Lehnhardt, Fatima & Gächter, Simon, 2023. "The behavioral mechanisms of voluntary cooperation across culturally diverse societies: Evidence from the US, the UK, Morocco, and Turkey," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 134-152.
    19. José Gabriel Castillo & Zhicheng Phil Xu & Ping Zhang & Xianchen Zhu, 2021. "The effects of centralized power and institutional legitimacy on collective action," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 385-419, February.
    20. Nikos Nikiforakis & Hans-Theo Normann & Brian Wallace, 2007. "Asymmetric Enforcement of Cooperation in a Social Dilemma," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 982, The University of Melbourne.

    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:gam:jgames:v:12:y:2021:i:2:p:50-:d:572371. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.