(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)"> (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)">
[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00175879.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Creating vs. maintaining threshold public goods in conservation policies

Author

Listed:
  • Douadia Bougherara
  • Laurent Denant-Boèmont

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • David Masclet

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract
Conservation policies provide strong incentives to farmers to contribute to the environmental protection. One concern of such policies is to create and/or maintain a variety of valuable public goods. One main difference between creating and maintaining public good is that farmers are asked to create resources in the first policy, while in the other, they have to maintain unchanged an existing level of resources. While conservation policies indifferently aim at both creating and maintaining a variety of public goods since they provide similar incentive for both policies, it is possible that farmers behave differently in the two contexts. This paper aims at testing this framing effect. The originality of our approach is to combine both framing and threshold dimensions by comparing maintaining and creating contexts using threshold public goods experiments. First, the creating treatment corresponds to a classical Voluntary Contribution Mechanism whereas the maintaining treatment corresponds to a setting where all tokens are initially placed in the public investment and subjects can withdraw tokens. Second, we test for this hypothesis in the case of Provision Point Mechanism experiments with three different threshold levels. The results are that first, consistent with theoretical predictions, contributions rise with threshold level, with exception for the highest level. Second, individuals tend to be less cooperative in the maintaining frame rather than in the creating frame. Finally, framing effects seem to be more effective under higher threshold levels. Important consequences of these results can be found for the management of agri-environmental resources.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Douadia Bougherara & Laurent Denant-Boèmont & David Masclet, 2007. "Creating vs. maintaining threshold public goods in conservation policies," Post-Print halshs-00175879, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00175879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Andreoni, 1995. "Warm-Glow versus Cold-Prickle: The Effects of Positive and Negative Framing on Cooperation in Experiments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 1-21.
    2. Palfrey, Thomas R. & Rosenthal, Howard, 1984. "Participation and the provision of discrete public goods: a strategic analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 171-193, July.
    3. Andreoni, James, 1988. "Why free ride? : Strategies and learning in public goods experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 291-304, December.
    4. Weimann, Joachim, 1994. "Individual behaviour in a free riding experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 185-200, June.
    5. Keser, Claudia, 1996. "Voluntary contributions to a public good when partial contribution is a dominant strategy," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 359-366, March.
    6. Rondeau, Daniel & D. Schulze, William & Poe, Gregory L., 1999. "Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 455-470, June.
    7. Andreoni, James, 1993. "An Experimental Test of the Public-Goods Crowding-Out Hypothesis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1317-1327, December.
    8. Parkhurst, Gregory M. & Shogren, Jason F. & Bastian, Chris & Kivi, Paul & Donner, Jennifer & Smith, Rodney B. W., 2002. "Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 305-328, May.
    9. Isaac, R Mark & Walker, James M, 1988. "Communication and Free-Riding Behavior: The Voluntary Contribution Mechanism," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(4), pages 585-608, October.
    10. Palfrey, Thomas R. & Rosenthal, Howard, 1988. "Private incentives in social dilemmas : The effects of incomplete information and altruism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 309-332, April.
    11. Mark Bagnoli & Barton L. Lipman, 1989. "Provision of Public Goods: Fully Implementing the Core through Private Contributions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 56(4), pages 583-601.
    12. Wu, JunJie & Boggess, William G., 1999. "The Optimal Allocation of Conservation Funds," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 302-321, November.
    13. Asch, Peter & Gigliotti, Gary A & Polito, James A, 1993. "Free Riding with Discrete and Continuous Public Goods: Some Experimental Evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 293-305, October.
    14. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    15. Cadsby, Charles Bram & Maynes, Elizabeth, 1999. "Voluntary provision of threshold public goods with continuous contributions: experimental evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 53-73, January.
    16. Willinger, Marc & Ziegelmeyer, Anthony, 1999. "Framing and cooperation in public good games: an experiment with an interior solution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 323-328, December.
    17. Rapoport, Amnon & Eshed-Levy, Dalit, 1989. "Provision of step-level public goods: Effects of greed and fear of being gypped," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 325-344, December.
    18. Muradian, Roldan, 2001. "Ecological thresholds: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 7-24, July.
    19. Palfrey, Thomas R & Prisbrey, Jeffrey E, 1997. "Anomalous Behavior in Public Goods Experiments: How Much and Why?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(5), pages 829-846, December.
    20. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    21. Marks, Melanie & Croson, Rachel, 1998. "Alternative rebate rules in the provision of a threshold public good: An experimental investigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 195-220, February.
    22. R. Isaac & James Walker & Susan Thomas, 1984. "Divergent evidence on free riding: An experimental examination of possible explanations," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 113-149, January.
    23. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    24. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    25. Edward J. Lopez & W. Robert Nelson, 2005. "The Endowment Effect in a Public Good Experiment," Experimental 0512001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    26. R. Isaac & David Schmidtz & James Walker, 1989. "The assurance problem in a laboratory market," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 217-236, September.
    27. van de Kragt, Alphons J. C. & Orbell, John M. & Dawes, Robyn M., 1983. "The Minimal Contributing Set as a Solution to Public Goods Problems," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 112-122, March.
    28. Dawes, Robyn M. & Orbell, John M. & Simmons, Randy T. & Van De Kragt, Alphons J. C., 1986. "Organizing Groups for Collective Action," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1171-1185, December.
    29. Ramzi Suleiman, 1997. "Provision Of Step-Level Public Goods Under Uncertainty," Rationality and Society, , vol. 9(2), pages 163-187, May.
    30. McBride, Michael, 2006. "Discrete public goods under threshold uncertainty," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 1181-1199, August.
    31. Nitzan, Shmuel & Romano, Richard E., 1990. "Private provision of a discrete public good with uncertain cost," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 357-370, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bougherara, Douadia & Denant-Boemont, Laurent & Masclet, David, 2011. "Cooperation and framing effects in provision point mechanisms: Experimental evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1200-1210, April.
    2. Rose, Steven K. & Clark, Jeremy & Poe, Gregory L. & Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D., 2002. "The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 131-155, February.
    3. Ledyard, John O., "undated". "Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research," Working Papers 861, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    4. Rondeau, Daniel & D. Schulze, William & Poe, Gregory L., 1999. "Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 455-470, June.
    5. Krasteva, Silvana & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2013. "(Un)Informed charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 14-26.
    6. Bose, Bijetri & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2018. "Provision of public goods using a combination of lottery and a provision point," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 99-115.
    7. Koji Kotani & Kenta Tanaka & Shunsuke Managi, 2014. "Cooperative choice and its framing effect under threshold uncertainty in a provision point mechanism," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 329-353, November.
    8. Rachel Croson & Melanie Marks, 2000. "Step Returns in Threshold Public Goods: A Meta- and Experimental Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(3), pages 239-259, March.
    9. Lata Gangadharan & Veronika Nemes, 2009. "Experimental Analysis Of Risk And Uncertainty In Provisioning Private And Public Goods," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 47(1), pages 146-164, January.
    10. Cardella, Eric & Depew, Briggs, 2018. "Output restriction and the ratchet effect: Evidence from a real-effort work task," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 182-202.
    11. Krasteva, Silvana & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2014. "Reprint of: (Un)Informed charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 108-120.
    12. Marks, Melanie & Croson, Rachel, 1998. "Alternative rebate rules in the provision of a threshold public good: An experimental investigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 195-220, February.
    13. Takehisa Kumakawa & Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Takehiko Yamato, 2015. "Isolating and identifying motivations: A voluntary contribution mechanism experiment with interior Nash equilibria," Working Papers SDES-2015-16, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Mar 2015.
    14. Federica Alberti & Edward J. Cartwright, 2016. "Full agreement and the provision of threshold public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 205-233, January.
    15. Olli Lappalainen, 2018. "Cooperation and Strategic Complementarity: An Experiment with Two Voluntary Contribution Mechanism Games with Interior Equilibria," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-24, July.
    16. Felix Koelle, 2012. "Heterogeneity and Cooperation in Privileged Groups: The Role of Capability and Valuation on Public Goods Provision," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 03-08, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    17. Zhi Li & Christopher Anderson & Stephen K. Swallow, 2012. "Uniform Price Mechanisms for Threshold Public Goods Provision: An Experimental Investigation," Working Papers 14, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    18. Anauati, María Victoria & Feld, Brian & Galiani, Sebastian & Torrens, Gustavo, 2016. "Collective action: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 36-55.
    19. Cadsby, Charles Bram & Maynes, Elizabeth, 1999. "Voluntary provision of threshold public goods with continuous contributions: experimental evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 53-73, January.
    20. Simona Cicognani & Anna D’Ambrosio & Werner Güth & Simone Pfuderer & Matteo Ploner, 2015. "Community projects: an experimental analysis of a fair implementation process," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 109-132, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00175879. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.