Search

We investigate the role of endowment inequality in a local and global public goods setting with multiple group membership and examine the effect of temporal role reversal on cooperation decisions. Subjects can contribute to a global public good which benefits all subjects and two local public goods which benefit only subjects of either their own group or the group of the other endowment type. Endowment inequality per-se decreases contributions of subjects with a high endowment to the global public good, but increases cooperation of subjects with a low endowment on their local public good, thereby aggravating income disparities. Exogenously induced role reversal for several periods affects cooperation behavior of subjects with a high endowment positively and induces them to contribute more to the global good. Cooperation in unequal environments thus appears to be more stable when all parties have experienced the public goods game from the disadvantageous perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We experimentally test different rule-based contribution mechanisms in a repeated 4-player public goods game with endowment heterogeneity and compare them to a VCM, distinguishing between a random and an effort-based allocation of endowments. We find that endowment heterogeneities limit the efficiency gains from these rule-based contribution schemes under random allocation. Under effort-based allocations, substantial efficiency gains relative to a VCM occur. These are largely driven by significant reductions of contributions in VCM, while the rule-based mechanisms generate stable efficiency levels, even though falling short in realizing the maximal efficiency gains. Our results indicate that the procedure of endowment allocation impacts the perception of what constitutes a fair burden sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies the voluntary provision of public goods that is partially driven by a desire to offset for individual polluting activities. We first extend existing theory and show that offsets allow a reduction in effective environmental pollution levels while not necessarily extending the consumption of a polluting good. We further discuss the impact of an increased environmental preference on purchases of offsets and mitigation activities. Several theoretical results are then econometrically tested using a novel dataset on activities to reduce $$\hbox {CO}_{2}$$ emissions for the case of vehicle purchases in the U.S. and Germany. We show that environmental preference triggers the stated use of $$\hbox {CO}_{2}$$ offsetting and mitigation channels in both countries. However, we find strong country differences for the stated purchase of $$\hbox {CO}_{2}$$ offsets. While such activities are mainly triggered by a high general awareness of the climate change problem in the U.S., the perception that road travel is responsible for $$\hbox {CO}_{2}$$ emissions to a large extent is more important for driver's license holders in Germany. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We replicate Andreoni (Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 1-21, )'s finding that agents behave more selfishly when taking from a public account than when giving to a public good. Based on a neutral language setting we add new insights into motivations to give or take in a linear public good setting: we find that Andreoni's result is partly driven by the complete elimination of giving options in the taking frame. However, a pure extension of the action space into the taking domain also leads to a significant increase in selfish behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigate how burden sharing rules impact the voluntary provision of a public good which generates heterogeneous benefits to agents. We compare different rule-based contribution schemes where agents can first suggest a minimum provision level of the public good, before the smallest common denominator is implemented. We find that rule-based contribution schemes significantly increase payoff levels relative to the VCM, while significant differences exist between the rules. Importantly, the equal-payoff rule maximizes payoffs for all player types. This also holds relative to a scheme where different types of players separately can determine their minimum contribution levels. Our results lend insights into the efficient institutional design for voluntary private provision of public goods, and how burden sharing rules interact with efficiency when agents are heterogeneous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]