Commons as a Risk-Management Tool: Theoretical Predictions and an Experimental Test

M. Brunette, P. Delacote, S. Garcia, J. Rousselle
{"title":"Commons as a Risk-Management Tool: Theoretical Predictions and an Experimental Test","authors":"M. Brunette, P. Delacote, S. Garcia, J. Rousselle","doi":"10.3917/REDP.303.0405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The impact of the safety-net use of Common-pool resources (CPR) on the individual investment into and extraction from the commons is analyzed in this paper. Agents of the community first choose to invest in their private project and in the CPR; second, they choose how much to extract from their private project and the commons. The model compares two types of risk management tool: CPR as risk-coping and risk-diversification mechanisms. It also compares two types of risk: risk on a private project and risk on CPR investment by other community members. The theoretical predictions are empirically tested with experimental economics. In this view, we propose an original CPR game composed of two periods, an investment one and an extraction one. Our result clearly shows that risk reduction in the private project unambiguously decreases investment in the CPR, while it does not impact CPR extraction. We also show that a risk-coping strategy is well understood as more flexible and influenced by the outcome in terms of private project yield.","PeriodicalId":129622,"journal":{"name":"Revue d'économie politique","volume":"80 1-2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revue d'économie politique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3917/REDP.303.0405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The impact of the safety-net use of Common-pool resources (CPR) on the individual investment into and extraction from the commons is analyzed in this paper. Agents of the community first choose to invest in their private project and in the CPR; second, they choose how much to extract from their private project and the commons. The model compares two types of risk management tool: CPR as risk-coping and risk-diversification mechanisms. It also compares two types of risk: risk on a private project and risk on CPR investment by other community members. The theoretical predictions are empirically tested with experimental economics. In this view, we propose an original CPR game composed of two periods, an investment one and an extraction one. Our result clearly shows that risk reduction in the private project unambiguously decreases investment in the CPR, while it does not impact CPR extraction. We also show that a risk-coping strategy is well understood as more flexible and influenced by the outcome in terms of private project yield.
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
公地作为风险管理工具:理论预测与实验检验
本文分析了公共池资源的安全网使用对个人对公共资源的投入和提取的影响。社区代理人首先选择投资于他们的私人项目和CPR;其次,他们选择从他们的私人项目和公共资源中提取多少。该模型比较了两种类型的风险管理工具:作为风险应对机制和风险分散机制的CPR。它还比较了两种类型的风险:私人项目的风险和其他社区成员对CPR投资的风险。理论预测用实验经济学进行了实证检验。在此基础上,我们提出了一个由投资期和提取期组成的原始CPR博弈。我们的结果清楚地表明,私人项目的风险降低无疑减少了CPR的投资,但它不影响CPR的提取。我们还表明,风险应对策略被很好地理解为更灵活,并受私人项目收益率结果的影响。
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
Le rôle politique de la dotation globale de fonctionnement How to Reduce Post-Harvest Losses ? A Theoretical Assessment of a Support Policy versus a Regulation Policy. Janos Kornai’s Intellectual Legacy: Looking into System Paradigm and Soft Budget Constraints La logique rétributive de la durée d’assurance requise et des critères de validation de trimestres Bref retour cliométrique sur 50 ans de performances scolaires en lecture et en mathématiques en France : 1970-2020
×
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