IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mar/magkse/200904.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Clean Evidence on Face-to-Face: Why Experimental Economics is of Interest to Regional Economists

Author

Listed:
  • Björn Frank

    (University of Kassel)

Abstract

The notion of face-to-face contacts has recently become very popular in regional economics and in economic geography. This is the most obvious way to explain why firms still locate in proximity to others after the "death of distance", i.e., the shrinking costs for transportation, especially transportation of messages' pure information content. While this is intuitive, controlled laboratory experiments provide much more direct and reliable evidence on the importance of face-to-face contacts. They tackle the question what personal contacts are good for, and in which cases their effects are negligible. To the best of my knowledge, regional economists and geographers are not aware of this new and developing string of literature; it is the purpose of this paper to survey and to organize the relevant experimental research with a special focus on its importance for regional economics. However, the paper might also serve to alert more experimentalists to the importance of their work for current regional science, of which they seem not to be aware either.

Suggested Citation

  • Björn Frank, 2009. "Clean Evidence on Face-to-Face: Why Experimental Economics is of Interest to Regional Economists," MAGKS Papers on Economics 200904, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
  • Handle: RePEc:mar:magkse:200904
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.uni-marburg.de/en/fb02/research-groups/economics/macroeconomics/research/magks-joint-discussion-papers-in-economics/papers/2009-papers/04-2009_frank.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2009
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jörg Oechssler & Andreas Roider & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2015. "Cooling Off in Negotiations: Does it Work?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 171(4), pages 565-588, December.
    2. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Riccardo Crescenzi, 2008. "Mountains in a flat world: why proximity still matters for the location of economic activity," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 1(3), pages 371-388.
    3. Sylvie Charlot & Gilles Duranton, 2006. "Cities and Workplace Communication: Some Quantitative French Evidence," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(8), pages 1365-1394, July.
    4. Bochet, Olivier & Page, Talbot & Putterman, Louis, 2006. "Communication and punishment in voluntary contribution experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 11-26, May.
    5. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2005:i:33:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Chesney, Thomas & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert, 2009. "Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 618-635, October.
    7. Edward E Leamer & Michael Storper, 2001. "The Economic Geography of the Internet Age," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 32(4), pages 641-665, December.
    8. Bjørn Asheim & Lars Coenen & Jan Vang, 2007. "Face-to-Face, Buzz, and Knowledge Bases: Sociospatial Implications for Learning, Innovation, and Innovation Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 25(5), pages 655-670, October.
    9. Zoltan J. Acs & Attila Varga, 2008. "Entrepreneurship, Agglomeration and Technological Change," Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, chapter 24, pages 341-352, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Jarle Hildrum, 2007. "When Is Frequent Face-To-Face Contact Necessary In Innovation? A Comparative Study Of Two Distributed Product Development Projects," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(6), pages 467-484.
    11. Winger, Alan R., 2005. "Face-to-face communication: Is it really necessary in a digitizing world?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 247-253.
    12. Valley, Kathleen & Thompson, Leigh & Gibbons, Robert & Bazerman, Max H., 2002. "How Communication Improves Efficiency in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 127-155, January.
    13. repec:feb:natura:0059 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Scharlemann, Jorn P. W. & Eckel, Catherine C. & Kacelnik, Alex & Wilson, Rick K., 2001. "The value of a smile: Game theory with a human face," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 617-640, October.
    15. Joseph Tao-yi Wang & Michael Spezio & Colin F. Camerer, 2010. "Pinocchio's Pupil: Using Eyetracking and Pupil Dilation to Understand Truth Telling and Deception in Sender-Receiver Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 984-1007, June.
    16. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    17. Brosig, Jeannette, 2002. "Identifying cooperative behavior: some experimental results in a prisoner's dilemma game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 275-290, March.
    18. Rigdon, Mary & Ishii, Keiko & Watabe, Motoki & Kitayama, Shinobu, 2009. "Minimal social cues in the dictator game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 358-367, June.
    19. Carsten Schmidt & Ro'i Zultan, 2005. "The Uncontrolled Social Utility Hypothesis Revisited," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(33), pages 1-7.
    20. Dominique Cappellettia & Werner Güth & Matteo Ploner, 2008. "Being of two minds: an ultimatum experiment investigating affective processes," Jena Economics Research Papers 2008-048, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    21. Moore, Don A. & Kurtzberg, Terri R. & Thompson, Leigh L. & Morris, Michael W., 1999. "Long and Short Routes to Success in Electronically Mediated Negotiations: Group Affiliations and Good Vibrations, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 22-43, January.
    22. Frohlich, Norman & Oppenheimer, Joe, 1998. "Some consequences of e-mail vs. face-to-face communication in experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 389-403, April.
    23. Andre Torre & Alain Rallet, 2005. "Proximity and Localization," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 47-59.
    24. Stefano Breschi & Francesco Lissoni, 2001. "articles: Localised knowledge spillovers vs. innovative milieux: Knowledge "tacitness" reconsidered," Papers in Regional Science, Springer;Regional Science Association International, vol. 80(3), pages 255-273.
    25. Thomas Doring & Jan Schnellenbach, 2006. "What do we know about geographical knowledge spillovers and regional growth?: A survey of the literature," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 375-395.
    26. Melissa Bateson & Daniel Nettle & Gilbert Roberts, 2006. "Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting," Natural Field Experiments 00214, The Field Experiments Website.
    27. Catherine C. Eckel, 2007. "People Playing Games: The Human Face of Experimental Economics," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(4), pages 840-857, April.
    28. Brosig, Jeannette, 2006. "Communication channels and induced behavior," MPRA Paper 14035, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    29. Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982. "Strategic Information Transmission," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-1451, November.
    30. Kevin Morgan, 2004. "The exaggerated death of geography: learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 3-21, January.
    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. Björn Frank, 2014. "Laboratory Evidence on Face-to-Face," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 37(4), pages 411-435, October.
    2. Anne Aguiléra & Virginie Lethiais, 2016. "Explaining the Relative Frequency of Face-to-face Meetings in Cooperative Relationships among Companies: An Econometric Analysis," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 218-235, June.
    3. Ivan Balbuzanov, 2019. "Lies and consequences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(4), pages 1203-1240, December.
    4. Robert J. Stimson, 2014. "Proximity and endogenous regional development," Chapters, in: André Torre & Frédéric Wallet (ed.), Regional Development and Proximity Relations, chapter 1, pages 47-93, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Brosig, Jeannette, 2006. "Communication channels and induced behavior," MPRA Paper 14035, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Stephen Atlas & Louis Putterman, 2011. "Trust among the Avatars: A Virtual World Experiment, with and without Textual and Visual Cues," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(1), pages 63-86, July.
    7. Andres Rodriguez-Pose & Riccardo regstdcenzi, 2008. "Research and Development, Spillovers, Innovation Systems, and the Genesis of Regional Growth in Europe," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 51-67.
    8. Ben-Ner, Avner & Putterman, Louis, 2009. "Trust, communication and contracts: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 106-121, May.
    9. Petra Nieken & Sven Walther, 2024. "Honesty in Virtual Communication," CESifo Working Paper Series 11094, CESifo.
    10. Chen, Daniel & Hopfensitz, Astrid & van Leeuwen, Boris & van de Ven, Jeroen, 2019. "The Strategic Display of Emotions," Discussion Paper 2019-014, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Ben Greiner & Werner Güth & Ro’i Zultan, 2012. "Social communication and discrimination: a video experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 398-417, September.
    12. Bernd Irlenbusch & Janna Ter Meer, 2012. "Fooling the Nice Guys: The effect of lying about contributions on public good provision and punishment," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 03-11, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    13. Drouvelis, Michalis & Marx, Benjamin M., 2018. "Prosociality spillovers of working with others," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 205-216.
    14. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stéphane Luchini & Julie Rosaz & Jason F. Shogren, 2019. "Truth Telling Under Oath," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 426-438, January.
    15. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Cabrales, Antonio & Mateu, Guillermo & Sanchez, Angel & Sutan, Angela, 2018. "Does pre-play social interaction improve negotiation outcomes?," MPRA Paper 90842, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Loren Pauwels & Carolyn H. Declerck & Christophe Boone, 2017. "Watching Eyes and Living up to Expectations: Unkind, Not Kind, Eyes Increase First Mover Cooperation in a Sequential Prisoner’s Dilemma," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-13, April.
    17. Battaglini, Marco & Makarov, Uliana, 2014. "Cheap talk with multiple audiences: An experimental analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 147-164.
    18. Rigdon, Mary, 2009. "Trust and reciprocity in incentive contracting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 93-105, May.
    19. Mohlin, Erik & Johannesson, Magnus, 2008. "Communication: Content or relationship?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 409-419, March.
    20. Fortuna Casoria & Arno Riedl & Peter Werner, 2020. "Behavioral Aspects of Communication in Organizations," Post-Print halshs-03024050, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cooperation; death of distance; face-to-face; localized spillovers; trust;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • R19 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Other

    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:mar:magkse:200904. 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: Bernd Hayo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vamarde.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.