The poor, the rich and the middle class: Experimental evidence from heterogeneous public good games

IF 2.3 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1016/j.jebo.2025.106913
Daniel W. Derbyshire , Michalis Drouvelis , Brit Grosskopf
{"title":"The poor, the rich and the middle class: Experimental evidence from heterogeneous public good games","authors":"Daniel W. Derbyshire ,&nbsp;Michalis Drouvelis ,&nbsp;Brit Grosskopf","doi":"10.1016/j.jebo.2025.106913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study sheds light on how different sources of inequality can affect cooperation in public good games. We present the results of one-shot and repeated public good experiments that seek to understand the interaction between the endowment and marginal return in heterogeneous groups. Our focus is on situations where endowments and marginal returns are either inversely or proportionally related. While two normatively appealing contribution rules are aligned in the proportional treatment, a conflict arises in the inverse treatment. In the one-shot experiment, we do not find significant differences across treatments. Contributions increase when the endowment, the marginal return or both increase. This is observed in all treatments except when endowment and marginal return are inversely related. Then the ‘middle class’ participants (those with medium endowment and marginal return) contribute more than both the high and low endowment types, mirroring real world observations of a ‘squeezed middle’. This suggests a conflict between the highly endowed subjects (but with low marginal return) and those with a high marginal return (but with low endowment). This pattern is similar when eliciting beliefs about others’ contributions - the two conflicting types expect others to contribute more than they do themselves. The novel treatments are repeated for 15 periods in a subsequent experiment to investigate potential convergence and dynamics. The results are similar to those of the one-shot interaction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48409,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization","volume":"231 ","pages":"Article 106913"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268125000332","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study sheds light on how different sources of inequality can affect cooperation in public good games. We present the results of one-shot and repeated public good experiments that seek to understand the interaction between the endowment and marginal return in heterogeneous groups. Our focus is on situations where endowments and marginal returns are either inversely or proportionally related. While two normatively appealing contribution rules are aligned in the proportional treatment, a conflict arises in the inverse treatment. In the one-shot experiment, we do not find significant differences across treatments. Contributions increase when the endowment, the marginal return or both increase. This is observed in all treatments except when endowment and marginal return are inversely related. Then the ‘middle class’ participants (those with medium endowment and marginal return) contribute more than both the high and low endowment types, mirroring real world observations of a ‘squeezed middle’. This suggests a conflict between the highly endowed subjects (but with low marginal return) and those with a high marginal return (but with low endowment). This pattern is similar when eliciting beliefs about others’ contributions - the two conflicting types expect others to contribute more than they do themselves. The novel treatments are repeated for 15 periods in a subsequent experiment to investigate potential convergence and dynamics. The results are similar to those of the one-shot interaction.
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
穷人、富人和中产阶级:来自异质公益游戏的实验证据
这项研究揭示了不同来源的不平等如何影响公共利益博弈中的合作。我们提出了一次和多次公共产品实验的结果,这些实验试图理解异质性群体中禀赋和边际收益之间的相互作用。我们关注的是禀赋和边际收益成反比或成比例相关的情况。在比例处理中,两个具有规范性吸引力的贡献规则是一致的,而在反向处理中则产生了冲突。在单次实验中,我们没有发现不同处理之间的显著差异。当禀赋、边际收益或两者都增加时,贡献增加。这在除禀赋和边际收益呈负相关外的所有处理中都可以观察到。然后,“中产阶级”参与者(拥有中等禀赋和边际回报的人)比高禀赋和低禀赋类型的参与者贡献更多,这反映了现实世界对“受挤压的中产阶级”的观察。这表明高禀赋主体(但边际收益低)和高边际收益主体(但禀赋低)之间存在冲突。这种模式在引出对他人贡献的看法时也很相似——两种相互冲突的类型都希望他人比自己贡献更多。在随后的实验中,新的治疗方法重复了15个周期,以研究潜在的收敛和动态。结果与单次相互作用的结果相似。
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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
392
期刊介绍: The Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization is devoted to theoretical and empirical research concerning economic decision, organization and behavior and to economic change in all its aspects. Its specific purposes are to foster an improved understanding of how human cognitive, computational and informational characteristics influence the working of economic organizations and market economies and how an economy structural features lead to various types of micro and macro behavior, to changing patterns of development and to institutional evolution. Research with these purposes that explore the interrelations of economics with other disciplines such as biology, psychology, law, anthropology, sociology and mathematics is particularly welcome.
期刊最新文献
Alliance formation in team contests with Blotto budgets The heterogeneous effects of borrower-based macroprudential policies on housing markets, credit affordability, and housing stock Can we balance green and growth? The environmental effect of place-based policies General equilibrium, welfare and policy analysis when firms have market power The sticky floor and ceiling of big cities: Intergenerational mobility in urban China
×
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:604180095
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