Favor trading in public good provision
- 436 Downloads
Favor trading is common. We do something nice for someone and they do something nice in return. Several motives might underlie such behavior, including altruism, strategic motives, and direct or indirect positive reciprocity. It is not yet well-understood how these fit together to affect behavior, how they interact in various institutional structures, and how they play out over time. We use a laboratory experiment to study the elements and dynamics of favor trading in a particular setting: the private provision of a public good. In our experiment, giving subjects the ability to practice targeted reciprocity by making a simple, low-cost change in information provision increases contributions to the public good by 14 %. Subjects reward group members who have previously been generous to them and withhold rewards from ungenerous group members. Strategic concerns cannot explain all of this behavior, and it must be at least partly due to direct reciprocity. When someone cannot directly benefit from favor trading, he gives much less to the public good. People thus excluded from the “circle of reciprocity” provide a clean and strict test of indirect reciprocity. Contrary to previous studies in the literature, we do not observe indirect reciprocity.
KeywordsPublic goods Direct and indirect reciprocity Experiment Peer-to-peer fundraising
JEL ClassificationC92 H41 D01
- Almenberg, J., Dreber, A., Apicella, C. L., & Rand, D. G. (2011). Third party reward and punishment: group size, efficiency and public goods. In N. M. Palmetti & J. P. Russo (Eds.), Psychology of punishment (pp. 73–92). New York: Nova Publishing. Google Scholar
- Cabral, L., Ozbay, E. Y., & Schotter, A. (2012). Intrinsic and instrumental reciprocity: an experimental study. Working paper, New York University. Google Scholar
- Croson, R. T. A. (2001). Feedback in voluntary contribution mechanisms: an experiment in team production. In R. Mark Isaac (Ed.), Research in experimental economics (Vol. 8, pp. 85–97). Amsterdam; New York and Tokyo: Elsevier Science. Google Scholar
- Dreber, A., Fudenberg, D., & Rand, D. G. (2013). Who cooperates in repeated games: the role of altruism, inequity aversion, and demographics. Working paper. Google Scholar
- Gächter, S. (2007). Conditional cooperation: behavioral regularities from the lab and the field and their policy implications. In B. S. Frey & A. Stutzer (Eds.), Economics and psychology. A promising new cross-disciplinary field. Boston: MIT Press. Google Scholar
- Girl Scouts of the USA (2011). Girl Scout cookies and learning life skills. http://www.girlscouts.org/program/gs_cookies/, retrieved January 2011.
- Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods: a survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
- Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
- Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. The American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281–1302. Google Scholar
- Reuben, E., & Suetens, S. (2012b). On the cognitive and motivational components of reciprocity. Working paper. Google Scholar