Theory and Decision

, Volume 81, Issue 4, pp 581–599 | Cite as

Who are the voluntary leaders? Experimental evidence from a sequential contribution game

  • Raphaële Préget
  • Phu Nguyen-Van
  • Marc Willinger
Article

Abstract

We rely on the methodology of Fischbacher et al. (Econ Lett 71(3):397–404, 2001) in order to identify subjects’ behavioral types. We then link the likelihood to act as a leader in a repeated public goods game to the elicited behavioral types. The leader in a group is defined as the subject who voluntarily decides in the first place about his contribution. The leader’s contribution is then reported publicly to the remaining group members who take their contribution decisions simultaneously. Our main findings are that leaders emerge in almost all rounds and that subjects who are identified as conditional cooperators are more likely to act as leaders than other types, e.g., free-riders or triangle-contributors. We also find that voluntary leaders, irrespective of their behavioral type, contribute always more than followers. However, the presence of leadership does not prevent the decay that is commonly observed in linear public goods experiments.

Keywords

Public goods Experimental economics Voluntary contribution mechanism Leadership 

JEL Classification

H41 C92 

References

  1. Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1047–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbak, E., & Villeval, M.-C. (2013). Voluntary leadership: Motivation and influence. Social Choice and Welfare, 40, 635–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dannenberg, A. (2015). Leading by example versus leading by words in voluntary contribution experiments. Social Choice and Welfare, 44, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Drouvelis, M., & Nosenzo, D. (2013). Group identity and leading-by-example. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 414–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. (2010). Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public good experiments. American Economic Review, 100, 541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Social comparisons and pro-social behavior. Testing ’conditional cooperation’ in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1717–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gächter, S., & Renner, E. (2003). Leading by example in the presence of free rider incentives. Paper presented at a Conference on Leadership, March 2003, Lyon.Google Scholar
  9. Gächter, S., & Renner, E. (2007). The role of leadership and beliefs in the voluntary provision of public goods. Mimeo: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  10. Gächter, S., Nosenzo, D., Renner, E., & Sefton, M. (2010). Sequential versus simultaneous contributions to public goods: Experimental evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 94(7–8), 515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gächter, S., Nosenzo, D., Renner, E., & Sefton, M. (2012). Who makes a good leader? Cooperativeness, optimism and leading-by-example. Economic Inquiry, 50(4), 953–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Güth, W., Levati, M. V., Sutter, M., & van der Heijden, E. (2007). Leading by example with and without exclusion power in voluntary contribution experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5–6), 1023–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haigner, S. D., & Wakolbinger, F. (2010). To lead or not to lead. Economics Letters, 108(1), 93–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keser, C., & van Winden, F. (2000). Conditional cooperation and voluntary contributions to public goods. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 102(1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kocher, M. G., Cherry, T., Kroll, S., Netzer, R. J., & Sutter, M. (2008). Conditional cooperation on three continents. Economics Letters, 101, 175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumru, C., & Vesterlund, L. (2010). The effect of status on charitable giving. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12(4), 709–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levati, M. V., Sutter, M., & van der Heijden, E. (2007). Leading by example in a public goods experiment with heterogeneity and incomplete information. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(5), 793–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2008). How is donation behaviour affected by the donations of others? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 67(1), 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Masclet, D., Willinger, M., & Figuières, C. (2012). Vanishing leadership and declining reciprocity in a sequential contribution experiment. Economic Inquiry, 50(3), 567–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moxnes, E., & van der Heijden, E. (2003). The effect of leadership in a public bad experiment. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(6), 773–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neugebauer, T., Perote, J., Schmidt, U., & Loos, M. (2009). Selfish biased conditional cooperation: On the decline of cooperation in repeated public goods experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(1), 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pogrebna, G., Krantz, D. H., Schade, C., & Keser, C. (2011). Words versus actions as a means to influence cooperation in social dilemma situations. Theory and Decision, 71(4), 473–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Potters, J., Sefton, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2005). After you—Endogenous sequencing in voluntary contribution games. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 1399–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Potters, J., Sefton, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Leading-by-example and signaling in voluntary contribution games: An experimental study. Economic Theory, 33(1), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rivas, M. F., & Sutter, M. (2011). The benefits of voluntary leadership in experimental public goods games. Economics Letters, 112(2), 176–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal, 119, 1422–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wooldridge, J. M. (2005). Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphaële Préget
    • 1
  • Phu Nguyen-Van
    • 2
  • Marc Willinger
    • 3
  1. 1.LAMETAINRAMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.BETA, CNRSUniversité de StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  3. 3.LAMETAUniversité de MontpellierMontpellier Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations