IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20000111.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Econometric Analysis of Voluntary Contributions

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Bardsley

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Peter G. Moffatt

    (University of East Anglia)

Abstract

Contributions to public goods simulated in economists' laboratoryexperiments have two peculiarities from the perspective ofstatistical modelling. There is a variety of contributor behaviours(Ledyard, 1995), suggestive perhaps of separate classes ofindividuals, and contributions are doubly censored. We present aneconometric model of contributions in sequential play, which takesinto account the censoring, admits variation both within and betweenindividuals, and allows for the existence of a distinct class offree-riders. The model synthesises the 2-limit tobit analysis ofNelson (1976), the extension of tobit to panel techniques by Kim andMaddala (1992) and the "p-tobit" hurdle model of Deaton and Irish(1984). We estimate it for panel data from a public good experimentreported in Bardsley (2000). It reveals pronounced inter- and intra-individual variation, and shows significant effects for subjects'order in a sequential game, others' contributions and the position ofthe choice task within the experiment. These effects are plausiblyattributable to egoism, reciprocity and learning respectively. Inaddition, the existence of a distinct class of free-riders, whoconform to a game theoretic prediction of unconditional non-contribution, is confirmed. The model is estimated for tasks inwhich "others' behaviour" was controlled by the experimenter (butwithout using deception). We compare its predictions for actual play(in which others' behaviour is not controlled) with behaviour in areal game task. The predictions are consistent with the data.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Bardsley & Peter G. Moffatt, 2000. "An Econometric Analysis of Voluntary Contributions," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-111/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20000111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/00111.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davis, Douglas D. & Holt, Charles a., 1993. "Experimental economics: Methods, problems and promise," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 8(2), pages 179-212.
    2. Deaton, Angus & Irish, Margaret, 1984. "Statistical models for zero expenditures in household budgets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1-2), pages 59-80.
    3. Jordi Brandts & Gary Charness, 2000. "Hot vs. Cold: Sequential Responses and Preference Stability in Experimental Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(3), pages 227-238, March.
    4. Kim, Byeong Soo & Maddala, G S, 1992. "Estimation and Specification Analysis of Models of Dividend Behavior Based on Censored Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 111-124.
    5. Offerman, Theo & Sonnemans, Joep & Schram, Arthur, 1996. "Value Orientations, Expectations and Voluntary Contributions in Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 817-845, July.
    6. Andreoni, James, 1988. "Why free ride? : Strategies and learning in public goods experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 291-304, December.
    7. Weimann, Joachim, 1994. "Individual behaviour in a free riding experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 185-200, June.
    8. Nicholas Bardsley, 2000. "Control Without Deception: Individual Behaviour in Free-Riding Experiments Revisited," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(3), pages 215-240, December.
    9. Nicholas Bardsley, 2000. "Control without Deception," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-107/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
    11. Sugden, Robert, 1984. "Reciprocity: The Supply of Public Goods through Voluntary Contributions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 94(376), pages 772-787, December.
    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. Romaniuc Rustam, 2016. "What Makes Law to Change Behavior? An Experimental Study," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 447-475, July.

    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. Jen Shang & Rachel Croson, 2009. "A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(540), pages 1422-1439, October.
    2. Claudia Keser & Frans van Winden, 1997. "Partners contribute more to Public Goods than Strangers: Conditional Cooperation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 97-018/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. Nicholas Bardsley, 2000. "Control without Deception," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-107/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Urs Fischbacher & Simon G�chter, 2005. "Heterogeneous social preferences and the dynamics of free riding in public goods," IEW - Working Papers 261, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. Nicholas Bardsley & Peter Moffatt, 2007. "The Experimetrics of Public Goods: Inferring Motivations from Contributions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 161-193, March.
    6. Urs Fischbacher & Simon G�chter, 2005. "Heterogeneous social preferences and the dynamics of free riding in public goods," IEW - Working Papers 261, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. Nicholas Bardsley, 2000. "Control Without Deception: Individual Behaviour in Free-Riding Experiments Revisited," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(3), pages 215-240, December.
    8. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    9. Bardsley, Nicholas & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2005. "Conformity and reciprocity in public good provision," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 664-681, October.
    10. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
    11. van der Heijden, E.C.M. & Moxnes, E., 2003. "Leading by Example? Investment Decisions in a Mixed Sequential-Simultaneous Public Bad Experiment," Discussion Paper 2003-38, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    12. van der Heijden, E.C.M. & Moxnes, E., 2003. "Leading by Example? Investment Decisions in a Mixed Sequential-Simultaneous Public Bad Experiment," Other publications TiSEM 5ee6d610-b2c2-4c6b-a237-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Erling Moxnes & Eline van der Heijden, 2003. "The Effect of Leadership in a Public Bad Experiment," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(6), pages 773-795, December.
    14. Peter Katuscak & Tomas Miklanek, 2018. "Do Fixed-Prize Lotteries Crowd Out Public Good Contributions Driven by Social Preferences?," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp617, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    15. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matthias Sutter & Eline van der Heijden, 2004. "Leadership and cooperation in public goods experiments," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2004-29, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    16. Sabrina Teyssier, 2012. "Inequity and risk aversion in sequential public good games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 91-119, April.
    17. Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gaechter, 2008. "Heterogeneous Social Preferences And The Dynamics Of Free Riding In Public Good Experiments," Discussion Papers 2008-07, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    18. Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gachter, 2010. "Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 541-556, March.
    19. Roberto Burlando & Francesco Guala, 2002. "Overcontribution and decay in public goods experiments: a test of the heterogeneous agents hypothesis," CEEL Working Papers 0213, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    20. Mengel, Friederike & Peeters, Ronald, 2011. "Strategic behavior in repeated voluntary contribution experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(1-2), pages 143-148, February.

    More about this item

    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:tin:wpaper:20000111. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.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.