Abstract
Environmental policy design has much to gain from a better understanding of existing voluntary behaviour and motivations. In laboratory experiments, participants often exhibit social preferences such as altruism, spite, reciprocity and notions of fairness. In contrast, traditional neoclassical theory assumes that people act rationally in a way that maximises their self-interest. In environmental markets, social preferences and self-interest interact. We apply experimental economics to test the hypothesis that social preferences are not maintained in the presence of a competitive market institution. In the initial public goods game, many participants were prepared to make costly voluntary contributions. However the introduction of the market institution triggered a ‘market instinct’ in experimental participants. They abandoned the social preferences they were previously expressing and became self-interested profit maximisers. This self-interested behaviour persisted even after the market institution was discontinued. These findings are important to understanding the role and impact of markets for environmental policy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asheim GB (2010) Strategic use of environmental information. Environ Resour Econ 46: 207–216
Bowles S (1998) Endogenous preferences: the cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions. J Econ Lit 36: 75–111
Brosnan SF, de Waal FBM (2003) Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature 425: 297–299
Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity. Games Econ Behav 54: 293–315
Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2002) Why social preferences matter—the impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation and incentives. Econ J 112: C1–C33
Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarter J Econ 114: 817–868
Frey BS (1997) Not just for the money: an economic theory of personal motivation. Edward Elgar, UK
Frey BS (2001) Inspiring economics: human motivation in political economy. Edward Elgar, UK
Gneezy U, Haruvy E, Yafe H (2004) The inefficiency of splitting the bill: a lesson in institution design. Econ J 114: 265–280
Gneezy U, Rustichini A (2000) A fine is a price. J Legal Stud 29: 1–18
Hoffman E, McCabe K, Shachat K, Smith V (1994) Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games Econ Behav 7: 346–380
Johansson-Stenman O, Konow J (2010) Fair air: distributive justice and environmental economics. Environ Resour Econ 46: 147–166
Latacz-Lohmann U, Van der Hamsvoort CPCM (1998) Auctions as a means of creating a market for public goods from agriculture. J Agricult Econ 49: 334–345
Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. J Econmic Perspect 21: 153–174
List JA (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Quarter J Econ, pp 41–71
List JA (2004) Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica 72: 615–625
List JA (2006) The behavioralist meets the market: measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. J Polit Econ 114: 1–37
Pillutla MM, Chen XP (1999) Social norms and cooperation in social dilemmas: the effects of context and feedback. Org Behav Human Decision Proc 78: 81–103
Reeson AF, Tisdell JG (2008) Institutions, motivations and public goods: an experimental test of motivational crowding. J Econ Behav Org 68: 273–281
Roth AE, Prasnikar V, Okuno-Fujiwara M, Zamir S (1991) Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: an experimental study. Am Econ Rev 81: 1068–1095
Schilizzi S (2004) Should equity concerns impose limits on the use of market based instruments? In: Whitten S, Carter M, Stoneham G (eds), Market-based tools for environmental management, RIRDC Publication no. 04/142, Canberra, Australia, pp 132–151
Shogren J, Parkhurst G, Banerjee P (2010) Two cheers and a qualm for behavioral environmental economics. Environ Resour Econ 46: 235–247
Sobel J (2005) Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. J Econ Lit 43: 392–436
Stoneham G, Chaudhri V, Ha A, Strappazzon L (2003) Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s Bushtender trial. Austr J Agricult Resour Econ 47: 477–500
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reeson, A.F., Tisdell, J.G. The Market Instinct: The Demise of Social Preferences for Self-Interest. Environ Resource Econ 47, 439–453 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9387-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9387-0
