On the scope of externalities in experimental markets

  • Björn Bartling
  • Vanessa Valero
  • Roberto WeberEmail author
Original Paper


We study how the scope of negative externalities from market activity affects the willingness of market actors to exhibit social responsibility. Using the laboratory experimental paradigm introduced by Bartling et al. (Q J Econ 130(1):219–266, 2015), we compare the voluntary internalization of negative social impacts by market actors in cases where the negative externality is diffused among many subjects or is concentrated on a single subject. We (1) replicate earlier results demonstrating substantial degrees of market social responsibility and (2) find that the willingness of market actors to act pro-socially is only slightly affected by whether the impacts are concentrated or diffused.


Negative externalities Scope of externalities Social responsibility Market experiments 

JEL Classification

C92 D62 M14 



We would like to thank the Co-Editor, Marie Claire Villeval, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions. We also gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant Number 100018_165943).

Supplementary material

10683_2017_9549_MOESM1_ESM.docx (390 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 389 kb)


  1. Barrios-Guerra, C. A. (2004). Mercury contamination in Chile: A chronicle of a problem foretold. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 183, 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. Bartling, B., Weber, R., & Yao, L. (2015). Do markets erode social responsibility? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 219–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, O., Baetge, I., & Nicklisch, A. (2014). hroot: Hamburg registration and organization online tool. European Economic Review, 71, 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danz, D., Engelmann, D., & Kübler, D. (2012). Do legal standards affect ethical concerns of consumers? An Experiment on Minimum Wages, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics, Working Paper 12–3.Google Scholar
  6. Falk, A., & Szech, N. (2013). Morals and markets. Science, 340, 707–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harada, M. (1995). Minamata disease: Methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 25(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Irlenbusch, B., & Saxler, D. (2015). Social responsibility in market interaction, IZA Discussion Paper No. 9240.Google Scholar
  10. Kirchler, M., Huber, J., Stefan, M., & Sutter, M. (2015). Market design and moral behavior. Management Science, 62(9), 2615–2625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Pigors, M., & Rockenbach, B. (2016). Consumer social responsibility, forthcoming in Management Science. Google Scholar
  13. Plott, C. R. (1983). Externalities and corrective policies in experimental markets. Economic Journal, 93, 106–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schumacher, H., Kesternich, I., Kosfeld, M., & Winter, J. (2016). One, two, many—insensitivity to group size in games with concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, forthcoming in Review of Economic Studies. Google Scholar
  15. Slovic, P. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95.Google Scholar
  16. Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sutter, M., Huber, J., Kirchler, M., & Stefan, M. (2016). Where to look for the morals in markets?, IZA Discussion Paper No. 10105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Björn Bartling
    • 1
  • Vanessa Valero
    • 1
  • Roberto Weber
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations