IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235719.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Open Comment Processes Increase Regulatory Compliance? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Morgan, Stephen N.
  • Mason, Nicole M.
  • Shupp, Robert S.

Abstract

Agri-environmental programs often incorporate stakeholder participation elements in an effort to increase community ownership of policies designed to protect environmental resources (Hajer 1995; Fischer 2000). Participation – acting through increased levels of ownership – is then expected to increase individual rates of compliance with regulatory policies. Utilizing a novel lab experiment, this research leverages a public goods contribution game to test the effects of a specific type of stakeholder participation scheme on individual compliance outcomes. We find significant evidence that the implemented type of non-voting participation mechanism reduces the probability that an individual will engage in noncompliant behavior and reduces the level of noncompliance. At the same time, exposure to the open comment treatment also increases individual contributions to a public good. Additionally, we find evidence that exposure to participation schemes results in a faster decay in individual compliance over time suggesting that the impacts of this type of participation mechanism may be transitory.

Suggested Citation

  • Morgan, Stephen N. & Mason, Nicole M. & Shupp, Robert S., 2016. "Do Open Comment Processes Increase Regulatory Compliance? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235719, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235719
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235719/files/Morgan_AAEA_Draft_3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235719?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. Steven Shavell & A. Mitchell Polinsky, 2000. "The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(1), pages 45-76, March.
    2. Sandra E. Black & Lisa M. Lynch, 2001. "How To Compete: The Impact Of Workplace Practices And Information Technology On Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(3), pages 434-445, August.
    3. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Carlo Gallier & Martin Kesternich & Bodo Sturm, 2017. "Voting for Burden Sharing Rules in Public Goods Games," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 535-557, July.
    5. Stephan Kroll & Todd L. Cherry & Jason F. Shogren, 2007. "Voting, Punishment, And Public Goods," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 557-570, July.
    6. Pedro Dal Bo & Andrew Foster & Louis Putterman, 2010. "Institutions and Behavior: Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Democracy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2205-2229, December.
    7. Martin Sefton & Robert Shupp & James M. Walker, 2007. "The Effect Of Rewards And Sanctions In Provision Of Public Goods," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(4), pages 671-690, October.
    8. Jean‐Robert Tyran & Lars P. Feld, 2006. "Achieving Compliance when Legal Sanctions are Non‐deterrent," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 108(1), pages 135-156, March.
    9. Astrid Dannenberg & Andreas Lange & Bodo Sturm, 2014. "Participation and Commitment in Voluntary Coalitions to Provide Public Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(322), pages 257-275, April.
    10. Juan-Pablo Montero, 1999. "Voluntary Compliance with Market-Based Environmental Policy: Evidence from the U.S. Acid Rain Program," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(5), pages 998-1033, October.
    11. Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina & Müller, Klaus & Schleyer, Christian, 2014. "Cross Compliance as payment for public goods? Understanding EU and US agricultural policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 185-194.
    12. Kenju Kamei & Louis Putterman & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2015. "State or nature? Endogenous formal versus informal sanctions in the voluntary provision of public goods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(1), pages 38-65, March.
    13. Bardhan, Pranab, 2000. "Irrigation and Cooperation: An Empirical Analysis of 48 Irrigation Communities in South India," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(4), pages 847-865, July.
    14. Brady, Henry E. & Verba, Sidney & Schlozman, Kay Lehman, 1995. "Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(2), pages 271-294, June.
    15. Christian Lippert & Alexander Zorn & Stephan Dabbert, 2014. "Econometric analysis of noncompliance with organic farming standards in Switzerland," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 313-325, 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. Morgan, S. & Mason, N. & Shupp, R., 2018. "Stakeholder Comments, Contributions, and Compliance: Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277122, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Morgan, Stephen N. & Mason, Nicole M. & Shupp, Robert S., 2017. "Do Stakeholder Comments Influence Regulator Behavior? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258395, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Peter Martinsson & Emil Persson, 2019. "Public Goods and Minimum Provision Levels: Does the Institutional Formation Affect Cooperation?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(4), pages 1473-1499, October.
    4. Morgan, Stephen N. & Mason, Nicole M. & Shupp, Robert S., 2019. "The effects of voice with(out) punishment: Public goods provision and rule compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Astrid Dannenberg & Carlo Gallier, 2020. "The choice of institutions to solve cooperation problems: a survey of experimental research," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 716-749, September.
    6. Dannenberg, Astrid & Gallier, Carlo, 2019. "The choice of institutions to solve cooperation problems: A survey of experimental research," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-021, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. Astrid Dannenberg & Carlo Gallier, 2019. "The Choice of Institutions to Solve Cooperation Problems: A Survey of Experimental Research," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201911, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    8. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Luchini, Stéphane & Malézieux, Antoine, 2021. "Does voting on tax fund destination imply a direct democracy effect?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    9. Fanny E. Schories, 2022. "The Influence of Indirect Democracy and Leadership Choice on Cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1173-1201, September.
    10. Schories, Fanny E., 2017. "Institutional Choice and Cooperation in Representative Democracies: An Experimental Approach," ILE Working Paper Series 9, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    11. Dal Bó, Pedro & Foster, Andrew & Kamei, Kenju, 2024. "The democracy effect: A weights-based estimation strategy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 31-45.
    12. Fluet, Claude & Galbiati, Rpbertp, 2016. "Lois et normes : les enseignements de l'économie comportementale," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 191-215, Mars-Juin.
    13. De Geest, Lawrence R. & Kingsley, David C., 2019. "Endowment heterogeneity, incomplete information & institutional choice in public good experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    14. Yang, Xiaojun & Nie, Zihan & Qiu, Jianying & Tu, Qin, 2020. "Institutional preferences, social preferences and cooperation: Evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment in rural China," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    15. Daniel A. DeCaro & Marco A. Janssen & Allen Lee, 2015. "Synergistic effects of voting and enforcement on internalized motivation to cooperate in a resource dilemma," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(6), pages 511-537, November.
    16. Gürerk, Özgür & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Rockenbach, Bettina, 2014. "On cooperation in open communities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 220-230.
    17. Vollan, Björn & Landmann, Andreas & Zhou, Yexin & Hu, Biliang & Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten, 2017. "Cooperation and authoritarian values: An experimental study in China," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 90-105.
    18. Gallier, Carlo, 2020. "Democracy and compliance in public goods games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    19. Kingsley, David C. & Brown, Thomas C., 2016. "Endogenous and costly institutional deterrence in a public good experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 33-41.
    20. Vollan, Björn & Prediger, Sebastian & Frölich, Markus, 2013. "Co-managing common-pool resources: Do formal rules have to be adapted to traditional ecological norms?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 51-62.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy; Institutional and Behavioral Economics; Political Economy;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea16:235719. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.