IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bge/wpaper/1305.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Childhood Vaccination Behavior: Nash versus Kant

Author

Listed:
  • Philippe De Donder
  • Humberto Llavador
  • Stefan Penczynski
  • John E. Roemer
  • Roberto Vélez

Abstract

The vaccination game exhibits positive externalities. The standard game-theoretic approach assumes that parents make decisions according to the Nash protocol, which is individualistic and non-cooperative. However, in more solidaristic societies, parents may behave cooperatively, optimizing according to the Kantian protocol, in which the equilibrium is efficient. We develop a random utility model of vaccination behavior and prove that the equilibrium coverage rate is larger with the Kant protocol than with the Nash one. Using survey data collected from six countries, we calibrate the parameters of the vaccination game, compute both Nash equilibrium and Kantian equilibrium profiles, and compare them with observed vaccination behavior. We find evidence that parents demonstrate cooperative behavior in all six countries. We argue that the existence of positive externalities has fostered a social norm, leading to higher vaccination rates than predicted by individualistic decision-making, and that the Kantian equilibrium offers one precise version of such social norm. The study highlights the importance of cooperation and social norms in shaping vaccination behavior and underscores the need to consider these factors in public health interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Philippe De Donder & Humberto Llavador & Stefan Penczynski & John E. Roemer & Roberto Vélez, 2021. "A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Childhood Vaccination Behavior: Nash versus Kant," Working Papers 1305, Barcelona School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:bge:wpaper:1305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://bse.eu/sites/default/files/working_paper_pdfs/1305_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Alm, 2019. "What Motivates Tax Compliance?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 353-388, April.
    2. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    3. Christopher Avery & William Bossert & Adam Clark & Glenn Ellison & Sara Fisher Ellison, 2020. "An Economist's Guide to Epidemiology Models of Infectious Disease," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(4), pages 79-104, Fall.
    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. Ponthiere, Gregory, 2023. "Epictetusian Rationality and Evolutionary Stability," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1230, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    2. Gregory Ponthiere, 2024. "Epictetusian rationality," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 78(1), pages 219-262, August.

    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. James Alm & Antoine Malézieux, 2021. "40 years of tax evasion games: a meta-analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 699-750, September.
    2. Carol Luengo & Marcelo Caffera & Carlos Chávez, 2020. "Uncertain penalties and compliance: experimental evidence," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(2), pages 197-216, April.
    3. Müller, Martin & Olsen, Jerome & Kirchler, Erich & Kogler, Christoph, 2023. "How explicit expected value information affects tax compliance decisions and information acquisition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Lohse, Tim & Simon, Sven A., 2021. "Compliance in teams – Implications of joint decisions and shared consequences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Vossler, Christian A. & McKee, Michael & Bruner, David M., 2021. "Behavioral effects of tax withholding on tax compliance: Implications for information initiatives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 301-319.
    6. Nathalie Etchart-vincent & Marisa Ratto & Emmanuelle Taugourdeau, 2024. "Why should I comply with taxes if others don't?: an experimental study testing informational effects," Working Papers hal-04635966, HAL.
    7. Michele Bernasconi & Rosella Levaggi & Francesco Menoncin, 2020. "Dynamic Tax Evasion with Habit Formation in Consumption," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 122(3), pages 966-992, July.
    8. Bernasconi, Michele & Bernhofer, Juliana, 2020. "Catch Me If You Can: Testing the reduction of compound lotteries axiom in a tax compliance experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    9. Matej Lorko & Tomas Miklanek & Maros Servatka, 2024. "Why do some nudges work and others not?," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp777, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    10. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Christoph Engel & André Schmelzer, 2017. "Committing the English and the Continental Way – An Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2017_16, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    12. Sophie Clot & Charlotte Y. Stanton & Marc Willinger, 2017. "Are impatient farmers more risk-averse? Evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment in rural Uganda," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 156-169, January.
    13. Banerjee, Simanti & Conte, Marc, 2018. "Complexity and Efficiency in Conservation Auctions: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," Cornhusker Economics 307041, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    14. François Desmoulins-Lebeault & Jean-François Gajewski & Luc Meunier, 2018. "Personality and Risk Aversion," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 472-489.
    15. Bouton, Laurent & Castanheira, Micael & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol, 2016. "Divided majority and information aggregation: Theory and experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 114-128.
    16. Hübler, Olaf & Koch, Melanie & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2021. "Corruption and cheating: Evidence from rural Thailand," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    17. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    18. Robert Gazzale & Julian Jamison & Alexander Karlan & Dean Karlan, 2013. "Ambiguous Solicitation: Ambiguous Prescription," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1002-1011, January.
    19. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    20. Leroux, Marie-Louise & Maldonado, Dario & Pestieau, Pierre, 2019. "The political economy of contributive pensions in developing countries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 262-275.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Kantian equilibrium; Nash equilibrium; vaccination; social norm; free-rider problem;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior

    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:bge:wpaper:1305. 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: Bruno Guallar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bargses.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.