Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 601–623 | Cite as

The trade-off between welfare and equality in a public good experiment

  • Agathe Rouaix
  • Charles Figuières
  • Marc Willinger
Article

Abstract

We report the results of an experiment on voluntary contributions to a public good in which we implement a redistribution of the group endowment among group members in a lump sum manner. We study the impact of redistribution on group contribution, on individuals’ contributions according to their endowment and on welfare. Our experimental results show that welfare increases when equality is broken, as predicted by theory (Itaya et al. in, Econ Lett 57:289–296, 1997), because the larger contribution of the rich subjects overcompensates the lower contribution of the poor subjects. However, our data suggest that the adjustment of individual contributions after redistribution is not always compatible with the predictions. In particular, subjects who become poor contribute much less than subjects who were poor since the beginning.

References

  1. Alesina AF, Giuliano P (2009) Preferences for redistribution. NBER Working Paper Series, vol w14825. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1369061
  2. Anderson LR, Mellor JM, Milyo J (2008) Inequality and public good provision: an experimental analysis. J Soc-Econ 37:1010–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni J (1988) Why free ride? Strategies and learning in public goods experiments. J Public Econ 37:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreoni J, Miller J (2002) Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica 70:737–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson AB, Stiglitz JE (1976) The design of tax structure: direct versus indirect taxation. J Public Econ 6:55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagnoli M, McKee M (1991) Voluntary contribution games: efficient private provision of public goods. Econ Inq 29:351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergstrom TC, Blume L, Varian HR (1986) On the private provision of public goods. J Public Econ 29:25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bracht J, Figuières C, Ratto M (2008) Relative performance of two simple incentive mechanisms in a public goods experiment. J Public Econ 92:54–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brueckner JK (2008) Welfare reform and the race to the bottom: theory and evidence. South Econ J 66(2):505–525Google Scholar
  10. Bullock DS (1995) Are government transfers efficient? An alternative test of the efficient redistribution hypothesis. J Polit Econ 103:1236–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan KS, Mestelman S, Moir R, Andrew Muller RA (1996) The voluntary provision of public goods under varying income distributions. Can J Econ 29:54–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan KS, Mestelman S, Moir R, Andrew Muller RA (1999) Heterogeneity and the voluntary provision of public goods. Exp Econ 2:5–30Google Scholar
  13. Cherry TL, Kroll S, Shogren JF (2005) The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: evidence from the lab. J Econ Behav Org 57:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Croson RTA (1996) Partners and strangers revisited. Econ Lett 53:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahlberg M, Edmark K (2008) Is there a “race-to-the-bottom” in the setting of welfare benefit levels? Evidence from a policy intervention. J Public Econ 92(5–6):1193–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Cremer D (2007) When the rich contribute more in public good dilemmas: the effects of provision point level. Eur J Soc Psychol 37:536–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diamond PA, Mirrlees JA (1971a) Optimal taxation and public production: I—Production efficiency. Am Econ Rev 61(1):8–27Google Scholar
  18. Diamond PA, Mirrlees JA (1971b) Optimal taxation and public production: II—Tax rules. Am Econ Rev 61(3):261–278Google Scholar
  19. Durante R, Putterman L, Weele J (2014) Preferences for redistribution and perception of fairness: an experimental study. J Eur Econ Assoc 12(4):1059–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp Econ 10:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner B (1983) Efficient redistribution through commodity markets. Am J Agric Econ 65:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Georgantzís N, Proestakis A (2011) Accounting for real wealth in heterogeneous-endowment public good games. The Papers 10/20, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of GranadaGoogle Scholar
  23. Güth W, Kliemt H, Ockenfels A (2003) Fairness Versus efficiency—an experimental study of (mutual) gift giving. J Econ Behav Org 50:456–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Güth W, Pull K, Stadler M, Stribeck A (2010) Equity versus efficiency? Evidence from Three-person generosity experiments. Games 1 2:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holt CA, Laury SK (1998) Theoretical explanations of treatment effects in voluntary contributions experiments. In: Plott C, Smith V (eds) Handbook of experimental economics results. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Hofmeyr A, Burns J, Visser M (2007) Income inequality, reciprocity and public good provision: an experimental analysis. South African J Econ 75(3):508–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Itaya J-I, de Meza D, Myles GD (1997) In praise of inequality: public good provision and income distribution. Econ Lett 57:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keser C (1996) Voluntary contributions to a public good when partial contribution is a dominant strategy. Econ Lett 50:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maurice J, Rouaix A, Willinger M (2013) Income redistribution and public good provision: an experiment. Int Econ Rev 54(3):957–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mirrlees JA (1971) An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation. Rev Econ Stud 38:175–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Okun AM (1975) Equality and efficiency: the big trade-off. The Brookings Institution, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. Piketty T (1993) Implementation of first-best allocations via generalized tax schedules. J Econ Theory 61:23–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rapoport A, Suleiman R (1993) Incremental contribution in step-level public goods games with asymetric players. Org Behav Hum Decis Process 55:171–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Dijk E, Grodzka M (1992) The influence of endowments asymmetry and information level on the contribution to a public step good. J Econ Psychol 13:329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Dijk E, Wilke H (1995) Coordination rules in asymmetric social dilemmas: a comparison between public good dilemmas and resource dilemmas. J Exp Soc Psychol 31:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Warr PG (1983) The private provision of a public good is independent of the distribution of income. Econ Lett 13:207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wildasin DE (1991) Income redistribution in a common labor market. Am Econ Rev 81(4):757–774Google Scholar
  38. Yamada K, Naito H (2014) Neutrality theorem revisited: an empirical examination of household public goods provision. Tsukuba Economics Working PapersGoogle Scholar
  39. Zelmer J (2003) Linear public goods experiments: a meta-analysis. Exp Econ 6:299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agathe Rouaix
    • 1
  • Charles Figuières
    • 2
  • Marc Willinger
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsBusiness School, University of AberdeenScotlandUK
  2. 2.INRA, LAMETA, UFR d’EconomieMontpellier Cedex 2France
  3. 3.Université de Montpellier, LAMETA, UFR d’EconomieMontpellier Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations