Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 415–428 | Cite as

Public Bad Prevention by Majority Voting on Redistribution – Experimental Evidence

  • Matthais Sutter


We present an experimental study on voting behavior in groups of seven persons where public bad prevention depends on redistributing income by qualified majority voting. Although a payoff-maximizing voting pattern exists which guarantees a qualified majority – thus maximizing both individual and group payoffs – the qualified majority is failed in 27% (relatively costly public bad), respectively 46% (relatively cheap public bad) of all decisions. Controlling for different degrees of social distance when casting votes (i.e. anonymous versus with identification) we find that social distance matters when stakes are relatively low, inducing less efficient outcomes for the group when voting behavior is revealed. The endogenously determined status of subjects with respect to redistribution (“unlucky subjects” lose, “lucky subjects” win) systematically influences subjects' voting strategies and the collective outcomes, such that a higher number of unlucky subjects leads to less efficient outcomes for the group.

experiment group decision making public bad redistribution voting 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bohnet, I., and B. S. Frey. (1999a). “Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games: Comment,” American Economic Review 89, 335-339.Google Scholar
  2. Bohnet, I., and B. S. Frey. (1999b). “The Sound of Silence in Prisoner's Dilemma and Dictator Games,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 38, 43-57.Google Scholar
  3. Bolton, G. E., and A. Ockenfels. (2000). “ERC-A theory of Equity, Reciprocity and Competition,” American Economic Review 90, 166-193.Google Scholar
  4. Brunila, A., M. Buti, and D. Franco. (eds.). 2001). The Stability and Growth Pact. The Architecture of Fiscal Policy in EMU. Palgrave.Google Scholar
  5. Charness, G., and M. Rabin. (2002). “Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  6. Falkinger, J., E. Fehr, S. Gächter, and R. Winter-Ebmer. (2000). “A Simple Mechanism for the Efficient Provision of Public Goods — Experimental Evidence,” American Economic Review 90, 247-264.Google Scholar
  7. Fehr, E., and S. Gächter. (2000). “Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments,” American Economic Review 90, 980-994.Google Scholar
  8. Fehr, E., and K. Schmidt. (1999). “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, 817-868.Google Scholar
  9. Fiorina, M. P., and C. R. Plott. (1978). “Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study,” American Political Science Review 72, 575-598.Google Scholar
  10. Henrich, J., R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis, and R. McElreath. (2001). “In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies,” American Economic Review 91, 73-78.Google Scholar
  11. Hoffman, E., K. McCabe, and V. L. Smith. (1996). “Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games,” American Economic Review 86, 653-660.Google Scholar
  12. Isaac, R. M., J. M. Walker, and A. W. Williams. (1994). “Group Size and the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods: Experimental Evidence Utilizing Large Groups,” Journal of Public Economics 54, 1-36.Google Scholar
  13. Ledyard, J. O. (1995). “Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research,” in J. H. Kagel, and A. E. Roth (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press, pp. 111-194.Google Scholar
  14. Roth, A. E. (1995). “Bargaining Experiments,” in J. H. Kagel, and A.E. Roth (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press, pp. 253-348.Google Scholar
  15. Slonim, R., and A.E. Roth. (1998). “Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic,” Econometrica 66, 569-596.Google Scholar
  16. Sonnemans, J., A. Schram, and T. Offerman. (1998). “Public Good Provision and Public Bad Prevention: The Effect of Framing,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 34, 143-161.Google Scholar
  17. Tullock, G. (1999). “Non-Prisoner's Dilemmas,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 39, 455-458.Google Scholar
  18. van de Kragt, A. J. C., J. M. Orbell, and R. M. Dawes. (1983). “The Minimal Contributing Set as a Solution to Public Good Problems,” American Political Science Review 77, 112-122.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthais Sutter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Public EconomicsUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations