IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chu/wpaper/21-05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Institutions and Opportunistic Behavior: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Cabrales

    (Dept. of Economics, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid)

  • Irma Clots-Figueras

    (School of Economics, University of Kent)

  • Roberto Hernán-González

    (Burgundy School of Business)

  • Praveen Kujal

    (Dept. of Economics, Business School, Middlesex University)

Abstract

Risk mitigating institutions have long been used by societies to protect against opportunistic behavior. We know little about how they are demanded, who demands them or how they impact subsequent behavior. To study these questions, we run a large-scale online experiment where insurance can be purchased to safeguard against opportunistic behavior. We compare two different selection mechanisms for risk mitigation, the individual and the collective (voting). We find that, whether individual or collective, there is demand for riskmitigating institutions amongst high-opportunism individuals, while low-opportunism individuals demand lesser levels of insurance. However, high-opportunism individuals strategically demand lower insurance institutions when they are chosen collectively through voting. We also find that the presence of risk mitigating institutions crowds out reciprocity. Reciprocity is lower when the no-insurance option is chosen among other insurance options than when it is not available. Finally, we also observe higher gains from exchange in lowopportunism groups than in more opportunistic ones.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Cabrales & Irma Clots-Figueras & Roberto Hernán-González & Praveen Kujal, 2021. "Institutions and Opportunistic Behavior: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 21-05, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:21-05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/esi_working_papers/342/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    institutions; trust; trustworthiness; voting; insurance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers

    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:chu:wpaper:21-05. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Megan Luetje (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esichus.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.