IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v6y2017i4p71-d122897.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Human Actions and Institutional Change: What Are the Impacts of Power Asymmetries on Efficiency in Pasture Use?

Author

Listed:
  • Ulan Kasymov

    (Resource Economics Group, Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Humboldt University Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany)

  • Dimitrios Zikos

    (Resource Economics Group, Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Humboldt University Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany
    Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems (IRI THESys), Friedrichstraße 191, 10117 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

The paper investigates actions and decisions of agricultural resource users and explores their implications for institutional change and natural resource management in the post-socialist context of Central Asia. More specifically, the authors propose a novel methodological approach for the aforementioned context to support policy-relevant research that explicitly addresses behavioral responses of pastoralists in Kyrgyzstan. The paper builds on distributive and economic theories of institutional change and combines findings from lab and field framed economic experiments with complementary qualitative methods (questionnaires, group discussions and semi-structured interviews). By these means the authors test the impact of a specific variable on institutional change in pasture use: the role of power and specifically the difference in the ability of players to “survive” in a bargaining game without an agreement. The impact of power asymmetries and its implications for cooperation and the efficiency of bargaining outcomes are discussed and analyzed. Experimental results largely confirm findings reported in the literature: as players learn about the game and the behavior of others, they adjust their decisions accordingly; the subjects also exhibit other-regarding preferences, resulting to the prevalence of relatively equally distributed gains as an outcome. Furthermore, the findings of the study suggest that under the condition of incomplete information about the preferences of other players, the experimental subjects internalize the game as a group. The authors propose that an explanatory variable for such situations might be that actual shared beliefs of pasture users assist players to economize on information processing and coordinate the bargaining in an effective way. From this perspective, the paper raises a series of questions regarding the proposition that power asymmetry leads to inefficient bargaining outcomes, and provides some first insights for further investigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulan Kasymov & Dimitrios Zikos, 2017. "Understanding Human Actions and Institutional Change: What Are the Impacts of Power Asymmetries on Efficiency in Pasture Use?," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-19, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:6:y:2017:i:4:p:71-:d:122897
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/4/71/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/4/71/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Michael W.K. Malouf & Alvin E. Roth, 1981. "Disagreement in Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(2), pages 329-348, June.
    3. Belot, Michele & Duch, Raymond & Miller, Luis, 2015. "A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 26-33.
    4. Armin Falk & Stephan Meier & Christian Zehnder, 2013. "Do Lab Experiments Misrepresent Social Preferences? The Case Of Self-Selected Student Samples," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 839-852, August.
    5. Brousseau, Eric & Garrouste, Pierre & Raynaud, Emmanuel, 2011. "Institutional changes: Alternative theories and consequences for institutional design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(1-2), pages 3-19, June.
    6. Janssen, Marco A. & Anderies, John M. & Cardenas, Juan-Camilo, 2011. "Head-enders as stationary bandits in asymmetric commons: Comparing irrigation experiments in the laboratory and the field," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1590-1598, July.
    7. Theesfeld, Insa, 2011. "Perceived power resources in situations of collective action," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 4(1), pages 86-103.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7073 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Aoki, Masahiko, 2010. "Understanding Douglass North in game-theoretic language," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 139-146, May.
    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. Damien Bol & Jean-François Laslier & Matías Núñez, 2022. "Two Person Bargaining Mechanisms: A Laboratory Experiment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 1145-1177, December.
    2. John, Katrin & Thomsen, Stephan L., 2015. "School-track environment or endowment: What determines different other-regarding behavior across peer groups?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 122-141.
    3. Lergetporer, Philipp & Piopiunik, Marc & Simon, Lisa, 2021. "Does the education level of refugees affect natives’ attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. Jorge N Zumaeta, 2021. "Meta-Analysis of Seven Standard Experimental Paradigms Comparing Student to Non-student," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 13(2), pages 22-33.
    5. Thomas Epper & Julien Senn & Ernst Fehr, 2023. "Social preferences across subject pools: students vs. general population," ECON - Working Papers 435, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jan 2024.
    6. Frigau, Luca & Medda, Tiziana & Pelligra, Vittorio, 2019. "From the field to the lab. An experiment on the representativeness of standard laboratory subjects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 160-169.
    7. Sigbjørn Birkeland & Bertil Tungodden, 2014. "Fairness motivation in bargaining: a matter of principle," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 125-151, June.
    8. Kettner, Sara Elisa & Waichman, Israel, 2016. "Old age and prosocial behavior: Social preferences or experimental confounds?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 118-130.
    9. Gregory E. Kersten & Tomasz Wachowicz & Margaret Kersten, 2016. "Competition, Transparency, and Reciprocity: A Comparative Study of Auctions and Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 693-722, July.
    10. Chávez, Carlos A. & Murphy, James J. & Quezada, Felipe J. & Stranlund, John K., 2023. "The endogenous formation of common pool resource coalitions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 82-102.
    11. Crawford, Ian & Harris, Donna, 2018. "Social interactions and the influence of “extremists”," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 238-266.
    12. Ernst Fehr & Thomas Epper & Julien Senn, 2023. "The Missing Type: Where Are the Inequality Averse (Students)?," Working Papers hal-04362826, HAL.
    13. Prabal Roy Chowdhury, 2003. "Inefficiencies in a Model of Team Formation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 195-215, May.
    14. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Grimm, Veronika & Karakostas, Alexandros, 2020. "Bribing to Queue-Jump: An experiment on cultural differences in bribing attitudes among Greeks and Germans," MPRA Paper 102775, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Batrancea, Larissa M. & Kudła, Janusz & Błaszczak, Barbara & Kopyt, Mateusz, 2022. "Differences in tax evasion attitudes between students and entrepreneurs under the slippery slope framework," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 464-482.
    16. Sven Grüner & Ilia Khassine, 2022. "Is there a link between endowment inequality and deception? – an analysis of students and chess players," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Toke R. Fosgaard, 2018. "Cooperation stability: A representative sample in the lab," IFRO Working Paper 2018/08, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Gari Walkowitz, 2017. "Moral Entitlements and Aspiration Formation in Asymmetric Bargaining: Experimental Evidence from Germany and China," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-25, October.
    19. Tanja Baerlein & Ulan Kasymov & Dimitrios Zikos, 2015. "Self-Governance and Sustainable Common Pool Resource Management in Kyrgyzstan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-26, January.
    20. Mongoljin Batsaikhan, 2017. "Trust, Trustworthiness, And Business Success: Lab And Field Findings From Entrepreneurs," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 368-382, January.

    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:jresou:v:6:y:2017:i:4:p:71-:d:122897. 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.