{"title":"球迷们应该支付安保费用吗?安全费用的影响","authors":"Christian J. Sander , Stefan Thiem","doi":"10.1016/j.rie.2023.01.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There is a lively debate on whether football fans should pay a security fee to finance police activities. This paper investigates the price effect on the demand for tickets in a dynamic setting, by considering two subgroups of spectators, namely fans and hooligans. We analyze a situation in which the demand from each subgroup causes a negative social externality for members of the other group but a positive one for members of the same group. We show that charging a security fee may start a dynamic process, leading to fewer fans and more hooligans attending matches and thus, counterintuitively to even more violence. Therefore, the present study provides an argument to refrain from charging a security fee. As an alternative economic solution, we discuss the strategy of outpricing hooligans.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46094,"journal":{"name":"Research in Economics","volume":"77 1","pages":"Pages 122-130"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should football fans pay for security? Effects of a security fee\",\"authors\":\"Christian J. Sander , Stefan Thiem\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rie.2023.01.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There is a lively debate on whether football fans should pay a security fee to finance police activities. This paper investigates the price effect on the demand for tickets in a dynamic setting, by considering two subgroups of spectators, namely fans and hooligans. We analyze a situation in which the demand from each subgroup causes a negative social externality for members of the other group but a positive one for members of the same group. We show that charging a security fee may start a dynamic process, leading to fewer fans and more hooligans attending matches and thus, counterintuitively to even more violence. Therefore, the present study provides an argument to refrain from charging a security fee. As an alternative economic solution, we discuss the strategy of outpricing hooligans.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Economics\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 122-130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109094432300008X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109094432300008X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Should football fans pay for security? Effects of a security fee
There is a lively debate on whether football fans should pay a security fee to finance police activities. This paper investigates the price effect on the demand for tickets in a dynamic setting, by considering two subgroups of spectators, namely fans and hooligans. We analyze a situation in which the demand from each subgroup causes a negative social externality for members of the other group but a positive one for members of the same group. We show that charging a security fee may start a dynamic process, leading to fewer fans and more hooligans attending matches and thus, counterintuitively to even more violence. Therefore, the present study provides an argument to refrain from charging a security fee. As an alternative economic solution, we discuss the strategy of outpricing hooligans.
期刊介绍：
Established in 1947, Research in Economics is one of the oldest general-interest economics journals in the world and the main one among those based in Italy. The purpose of the journal is to select original theoretical and empirical articles that will have high impact on the debate in the social sciences; since 1947, it has published important research contributions on a wide range of topics. A summary of our editorial policy is this: the editors make a preliminary assessment of whether the results of a paper, if correct, are worth publishing. If so one of the associate editors reviews the paper: from the reviewer we expect to learn if the paper is understandable and coherent and - within reasonable bounds - the results are correct. We believe that long lags in publication and multiple demands for revision simply slow scientific progress. Our goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. We expect the associate editor to provide a more detailed evaluation within three weeks so that the editors can make a final decision before the month expires. In the (rare) case of a revision we allow four months and in the case of conditional acceptance we allow two months to submit the final version. In both cases we expect a cover letter explaining how you met the requirements. For conditional acceptance the editors will verify that the requirements were met. In the case of revision the original associate editor will do so. If the revision cannot be at least conditionally accepted it is rejected: there is no second revision.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
