The Gates Effect in Public Goods Experiments: How Donations Flow to the Recipients Favored by the Wealthy

Corazzini Luca, Cotton Christopher, Longo Enrico, Reggiani Tommaso
{"title":"The Gates Effect in Public Goods Experiments: How Donations Flow to the Recipients Favored by the Wealthy","authors":"Corazzini Luca, Cotton Christopher, Longo Enrico, Reggiani Tommaso","doi":"10.5817/wp_muni_econ_2021-13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Experiments involving multiple public goods with contribution thresholds capture many features of charitable giving environments in which donors try to coordinate their contributions across various potential recipients. We present results from a laboratory experiment that introduces endowment and preference differences into such a framework to explore the impact of donor heterogeneity on public good success and payoffs. We observe that wealthier donors tend to provide larger contributions to the public goods, and that the contributions of all other donors are most likely directed to the public good preferred by the wealthiest donor as other group members try to coordinate their donations to ensure public good success. We refer to this collective focus on the preferred good of the wealthiest as the Gates Effect. The Gates Effect can reduce inequality among donors groups that succeed in funding a public good; however, it also affects the philanthropic agenda, reducing the variety of public goods that receive funding.","PeriodicalId":188529,"journal":{"name":"MUNI ECON Working Papers","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MUNI ECON Working Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/wp_muni_econ_2021-13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Experiments involving multiple public goods with contribution thresholds capture many features of charitable giving environments in which donors try to coordinate their contributions across various potential recipients. We present results from a laboratory experiment that introduces endowment and preference differences into such a framework to explore the impact of donor heterogeneity on public good success and payoffs. We observe that wealthier donors tend to provide larger contributions to the public goods, and that the contributions of all other donors are most likely directed to the public good preferred by the wealthiest donor as other group members try to coordinate their donations to ensure public good success. We refer to this collective focus on the preferred good of the wealthiest as the Gates Effect. The Gates Effect can reduce inequality among donors groups that succeed in funding a public good; however, it also affects the philanthropic agenda, reducing the variety of public goods that receive funding.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公共物品实验中的盖茨效应:捐赠如何流向富人青睐的接受者
涉及多个具有捐赠阈值的公共产品的实验捕捉到了慈善捐赠环境的许多特征,在这些环境中,捐赠者试图在不同的潜在接受者之间协调他们的捐赠。我们提出了一项实验室实验的结果,该实验将捐赠和偏好差异引入该框架,以探索捐赠者异质性对公共产品成功和回报的影响。我们观察到,更富有的捐赠者倾向于为公共物品提供更大的捐款,而所有其他捐赠者的捐款最有可能指向最富有的捐赠者所偏好的公共物品,因为其他团体成员试图协调他们的捐款,以确保公共物品的成功。我们把这种集体关注最富有的人的首选商品的现象称为“盖茨效应”。盖茨效应可以减少成功资助公共产品的捐赠团体之间的不平等;然而,它也影响了慈善议程,减少了接受资助的公共产品的种类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Life Dissatisfaction and Anxiety in COVID-19 pandemic Narratives on migration and political polarization: How the emphasis in narratives can drive us apart Empirical investigation into market power, markups and employment Group identification and giving: in-group love, out-group hate and their crowding out Residential-based discrimination in the labor market
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1