IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/miceco/v8y2020i1p1-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community Participation with Trust: Evidence from a Framed Lab-in-field Experiment with Hybrid Game Model

Author

Listed:
  • Santanu Mitra
  • Abhishek Das
  • Gautam Gupta

Abstract

Out of the 104 islands of Indian Sundarbans, 54 are inhabited. These islands have mud embankments which protect them from intrusion of river and sea water and have made human settlement possible in these islands. Once the embankments were protected from tidal and storm surges by a layer of mangrove forests. But now the mangrove cover has vanished and consequently the embankments are frequently eroded or develop breaches being directly exposed to tidal and storm surges. One way to protect these mud embankments is to recreate mangrove plantations along the toe-line on the outer side of the embankments. This article uses a framed lab-in-field experiment to measure inclination towards community participation in regenerating common pool resources (CPRs), specifically regeneration of mangrove forest on the outer side of the embankments. The 320 subjects who participated in the experiment were villagers from different islands in the Indian Sundarbans. The experiment is a hybrid of the simple Public Goods Game with Voluntary Contributions Mechanism (VCM) and the Trust Game. The first is used to measure inclination towards contributing resources and effort for generation of CPRs and the second is to see if the participants trust others not to extract from the regenerated CPR and if such trust is reciprocated. The results show that voluntary contributions, contrary to theoretical prediction of free riding, are significantly high, though less than when there is no extraction. Trust levels are also quite high and a third of such trust is reciprocated. JEL Codes: C92, H40, Q23

Suggested Citation

  • Santanu Mitra & Abhishek Das & Gautam Gupta, 2020. "Community Participation with Trust: Evidence from a Framed Lab-in-field Experiment with Hybrid Game Model," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:miceco:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:1-17
    DOI: 10.1177/2321022219858265
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2321022219858265
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2321022219858265?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. Steffen Andersen & Erwin Bulte & Uri Gneezy & John A. List, 2008. "Do Women Supply More Public Goods Than Men? Preliminary Experimental Evidence from Matrilineal and Patriarchal Societies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 376-381, May.
    2. Sujoy Chakravarty & Carine Sebi & E. Somanathan & Emmanuel Theophilus, 2013. "The Demographics of Cooperation: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Gori-Ganga Basin," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 231-269, July.
    3. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    4. Abhishek Das & Santanu Mitra & Sujit Kumar Mondal & Gautam Gupta, 2013. "Regeneration of Common Pool Resources," Review of Market Integration, India Development Foundation, vol. 5(2), pages 155-169, August.
    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. Gupta, Gautam & Mahmud, Minhaj & Maitra, Pushkar & Mitra, Santanu & Neelim, Ananta, 2018. "Religion, minority status, and trust: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 180-205.
    2. Abhishek Das & Santanu Mitra & Sujit Kumar Mondal & Gautam Gupta, 2013. "Regeneration of Common Pool Resources," Review of Market Integration, India Development Foundation, vol. 5(2), pages 155-169, August.
    3. Shagata Mukherjee, 2020. "What Drives Gender Differences in Trust and Trustworthiness?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 48(6), pages 778-805, November.
    4. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    5. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    6. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    7. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    8. Drouvelis, Michalis & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2015. "Are happier people less judgmental of other people's selfish behaviors? Experimental survey evidence from trust and gift exchange games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 111-123.
    9. Petra Nieken & Sven Walther, 2024. "Honesty in Virtual Communication," CESifo Working Paper Series 11094, CESifo.
    10. Diego Marino Fages, 2023. "Migration and trust: Evidence on assimilation from internal migrants," Discussion Papers 2023-08, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    11. Ziqiang Xin & Guofang Liu, 2013. "Homo Economicus Belief Inhibits Trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-5, October.
    12. Shachat, Jason & Walker, Matthew J. & Wei, Lijia, 2024. "Contingent payments in procurement interactions: Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    13. Liu, Zhuo & Wang, Juan & Li, Xiaopeng, 2024. "Evolutionary dynamics of networked N-player trust games with exclusion strategy," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    14. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Sopher, Barry & Strand, Paul, 2002. "Cooperation in social dilemmas, trust and reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 231-249, April.
    15. Jiabin Wu, 2018. "Indirect higher order beliefs and cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(4), pages 858-876, December.
    16. Mario A. Maggioni & Domenico Rossignoli & Simona Beretta & Sara Balestri, 2017. "Trust behind bars: a longitudinal study of inmates? prosocial preferences," DISEIS - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo dis1701, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo (DISEIS).
    17. Zhou, Chen & Zhu, Yuying & Zhao, Dawei & Xia, Chengyi, 2024. "An evolutionary trust game model with group reputation within the asymmetric population," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    18. Colin F. Camerer, 1997. "Progress in Behavioral Game Theory," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 167-188, Fall.
    19. Urs Fischbacher & Simeon Schudy, 2014. "Reciprocity and resistance to comprehensive reform," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 411-428, September.
    20. Katharina Werner & Ahmed Skali, 2023. "Violent Conflict and Parochial Trust: Lab-in-the-Field and Survey Evidence," HiCN Working Papers 404, Households in Conflict Network.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    VCM; trust game; regeneration; CPR;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry

    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:sae:miceco:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:1-17. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.