Delegation and Public Pressure in a Threshold Public Goods Game

  • Doruk İrişEmail author
  • Jungmin Lee
  • Alessandro Tavoni


Many public goods cannot be provided directly by interested parties (e.g. citizens), as they entail decision-making at nested hierarchical scales: at a lower level individuals elect a representative, while at a higher scale elected delegates decide on the provision level, with some degree of scrutiny from their constituency. Furthermore, many such decisions involve uncertainty about the magnitude of the contribution that is needed for the good to be provided (or bad to be avoided). In such circumstances delegates can serve as important vehicles for coordination by aggregating societal preferences for provision. Yet, the role of delegation in threshold public goods games is understudied. We contrast the behavior of delegates to that of self-representing individuals in the avoidance of a public bad in an experimental setting. We randomly assign twelve subjects into four teams and ask each team to elect a delegate via majority voting. The elected delegates play several variants of a one-shot public goods game in which losses can ensue if the sum of their contributions falls short of a threshold. We find that when delegation is coupled with a mild form of public pressure, it has a significantly negative effect on contributions, even though the non-delegates can only signal their preferred levels of public good contributions. The reason is that delegates give more weight to the least cooperative suggestion: they focus on the lower of the two public good contributions recommended by their teammates.


Delegation Cooperation Threshold public goods game Climate experiment 

JEL Classification

C72 C92 D81 H4 Q54 



We would like to thank Astid Dannenberg, Michael Finus, Andreas Lange, Tatsuyoshi Saijo, Timo Goeschl (editor), and two unknown referees for their helpful suggestions. All remaining errors are ours. This work was supported in part by funding from the National Research Foundation of Korea (Grant No. 201322021.01). Lee’s work was supported by Research Resettlement Fund for the new faculty of Seoul National University.

Supplementary material

10640_2019_371_MOESM1_ESM.docx (123 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 122 kb)
10640_2019_371_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (3 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 3105 kb)
10640_2019_371_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (40 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 39 kb)


  1. Barrett S, Dannenberg A (2012) Climate negotiations under scientific uncertainty. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(43):17372–17376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bleichrodt H, Wakker PP (2015) Regret theory: a bold alternative to the alternatives. Econ J 125:493–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolton G, Ockenfels A, Stauf J (2015) Social responsibility promotes conservative risk behavior. Eur Econ Rev 74:109–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cadsby CB, Maynes E (1999) Voluntary provision of threshold public goods with continuous contributions: experimental evidence. J Public Econ 71(1):53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charness G, Jackson MO (2009) The role of responsibility in strategic risk-taking. J Econ Behav Org 69:241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charness G, Rigotti L, Rustichini A (2007) Individual behavior and group membership. Am Econ Rev 97(4):1340–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Croson R, Marks M (2000) Step returns in threshold public goods: a meta-analysis and experimental analysis. Exp Econ 2(3):239–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dannenberg A, Löschel A, Paolacci G, Reif Christiane, Tavoni Alessandro (2015) On the provision of public goods with probabilistic and ambiguous thresholds. Environ Resour Econ 61:365–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Habla W, Winkler R (2016) Strategic delegation and international permit markets: why linking may fail. EfD discussion paper series, pp 16–12Google Scholar
  10. Hamman JR, Weber RA, Woon J (2011) An experimental investigation of electoral delegation and the provision of public goods. Am J Political Sci 55(4):738–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. İriş Doruk (2018) Representation and social regret-aversion in risk-taking. Korean J Ind Org 26(3):1–17Google Scholar
  12. Kocher MG, Tan F, Yu J (2018) Providing global public goods: electoral delegation and cooperation. Econ Inquiry 56(1):381–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J 92(368):805–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Milinski M, Sommerfeld RD, Krambeck H-J, Reed FA, Marotzke J (2008) The collective-risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dangerous climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(7):2291–2294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Song F (2008) Trust and reciprocity behavior and behavioral forecasts: individual versus group-representatives. Games Econ Behav 62:675–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stoop J, Noussair CN, van Soest D (2012) From the lab to the field: cooperation among fishermen. J Political Econ 120(6):1027–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tavoni A, Dannenberg A, Kallis G, Löschel A (2011) Inequality, communication and the avoidance of disastrous climate change in a public goods game. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:11825–11829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zeelenberg M (1999) Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making. J Behav Dec Making 12(1):93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsSogang UniversityMapo-GuSouth Korea
  2. 2.Seoul National University and Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)SeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  4. 4.Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations