Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-03T16:38:59.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State or nature? Endogenous formal versus informal sanctions in the voluntary provision of public goods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Kenju Kamei ,
Louis Putterman  and
Jean-Robert Tyran
Kenju Kamei
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA
Louis Putterman*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Box B, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA
Jean-Robert Tyran
Affiliation:
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
*
Louis_Putterman@Brown.Edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate the endogenous formation of sanctioning institutions supposed to improve efficiency in the voluntary provision of public goods. Our paper parallels Markussen et al. (Rev Econ Stud 81:301–324, 2014) in that our experimental subjects vote over formal versus informal sanctions, but it goes beyond that paper by endogenizing the formal sanction scheme. We find that self-determined formal sanctions schemes are popular and efficient when they carry no up-front cost, but as in Markussen et al. informal sanctions are more popular and efficient than formal sanctions when adopting the latter entails such a cost. Practice improves the performance of sanction schemes: they become more targeted and deterrent with learning. Voters’ characteristics, including their tendency to engage in perverse informal sanctioning, help to predict individual voting.

Keywords

SanctionSocial dilemmaPublic goodsVoluntary contribution mechanismPunishmentExperiment

JEL classification

H41: Public Goods C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior D71: Social Choice • Clubs • Committees • Associations

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 1: Special Issue In Honor of Elinor “Lin” Ostrom , March 2015 , pp. 38 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-014-9405-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We wish to thank the Danish research council (FSE) and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF project no. S10307-G16) for financial support. We are grateful to two anonymous referees for their detailed comments and suggestions, and we likewise thank participants at the Economic Science Association meeting in July, 2010 in Copenhagen, XVIth IEA World Congress in July, 2011 in Beijing and at workshops at Brown University and George Mason University for their helpful comments.

References

Ambrus, A, & Greiner, B (2012). Imperfect public monitoring with costly punishment—An experimental study. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3317–3332. 10.1257/aer.102.7.3317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J (1988). Why free ride? Strategies and learning in public goods experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 37(3), 291–304. 10.1016/0047-2727(88)90043-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochet, O, Page, T, & Putterman, L (2006). Communication and punishment in voluntary contribution experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(1), 11–26. 10.1016/j.jebo.2003.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botelho, A., Harrison, G., Pinto, L. M. C., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Social norms and social choice. Unpublished paper, Department of Economics, University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
Charness, G, & Rabin, M (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–869. 10.1162/003355302760193904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhuri, A (2011). Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: A selective survey of the literature. Experimental Economics, 14(1), 47–83. 10.1007/s10683-010-9257-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinyabuguma, M, Page, T, & Putterman, L (2006). Can second-order punishment deter perverse punishment?. Experimental Economics, 9(3), 265–279. 10.1007/s10683-006-9127-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bó, P, Foster, A, & Putterman, L (2010). Institutions and behavior: Experimental evidence on the effects of democracy. American Economic Review, 100(5), 2205–2229. 10.1257/aer.100.5.2205Google Scholar
Denant-Boemont, L, Masclet, D, & Noussair, C (2007). Punishment, counter-punishment and sanction enforcement in a social dilemma experiment. Economic Theory, 33(1), 145–167. 10.1007/s00199-007-0212-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ertan, A, Page, T, & Putterman, L (2009). Who to punish? Individual decisions and majority rule in mitigating the free-rider problem. European Economic Review, 53(5), 495–511. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A, Fehr, E, & Fischbacher, U (2005). Driving forces behind informal sanctions. Econometrica, 73(6), 2017–2030. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00644.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E, & Gächter, S (2000). Cooperation and punishment. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980–994. 10.1257/aer.90.4.980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E, & Schmidt, K (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 817–868. 10.1162/003355399556151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U, & Gächter, S (2010). Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public good experiments. American Economic Review, 100(1), 541–556. 10.1257/aer.100.1.541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U, Gächter, S, & Fehr, E (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397–404. 10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gächter, S, & Herrmann, B (2008). Reciprocity, culture and human cooperation: Previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.Google Scholar
Gächter, S, Renner, E, & Sefton, M (2008). The long-run benefits of punishment. Science, 322(5907), 1510 10.1126/science.1164744CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gürerk, Ő, Irlenbusch, B, & Rockenbach, B (2006). The competitive advantage of sanctioning institutions. Science, 312(5770), 108–110. 10.1126/science.1123633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrmann, B, Thöni, C, & Gächter, S (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319(5868), 1362–1367. 10.1126/science.1153808CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamei, K. (2013). Democracy and resilient pro-social behavioral change: An experimental study. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1756225.Google Scholar
Kamei, K., & Putterman, L. (2013). In broad daylight: Fuller information and higher-order punishment opportunities can promote cooperation. Brown University Department of Economics working paper 2012–2013, revised.Google Scholar
Kube, S, & Traxler, C (2011). The interaction of legal and social norm enforcement. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 13(5), 639–660. 10.1111/j.1467-9779.2011.01515.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markussen, T., Putterman, L., & Tyran, J.-R. (2014). Self-organization for collective action: An experimental study of voting on sanction regimes. Review of Economic Studies, 81(1), 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforakis, N (2008). Punishment and counter-punishment in public goods games: Can we really govern ourselves?. Journal of Public Economics, 92(1–2), 91–112. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforakis, N, & Engelmann, D (2011). Altruistic punishment and the threat of feuds. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 78, 319–332. 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.01.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforakis, N, & Normann, H-T (2008). A comparative statics analysis of punishment in public goods experiments. Experimental Economics, 11(4), 358–369. 10.1007/s10683-007-9171-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosenzo, D. Sefton, M. (2014). Promoting cooperation: the distribution of reward and punishment power. In Lange, P. Van, Rockenbach, B. & Yamagishi, T. (Eds.), Reward and punishment in social dilemmas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Önes, U, & Putterman, L (2007). The ecology of collective action: A public goods and sanctions experiment with controlled group formation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 62(4), 495–521. 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.04.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E, Walker, J, & Gardner, R (1992). Covenants with and without a sword: Self governance is possible. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 404–416. 10.2307/1964229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, T, Putterman, L, & Unel, B (2005). Voluntary association in public goods experiments: Reciprocity, mimicry, and efficiency. Economic Journal, 115(506), 1032–1053. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.01031.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putterman, L, Tyran, J-R, & Kamei, K (2011). Public goods and voting on formal sanction schemes: An experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1213–1222. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigmund, K, De Silva, H, Traulsen, A, & Hauert, C (2010). Social learning promotes institutions for governing the commons. Nature, 466, 861–863. 10.1038/nature09203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutter, M, Haigner, S, & Kocher, Martin (2010). Choosing the carrot or the stick? Endogenous institutional choice in social dilemma situations. Review of Economic Studies, 77(4), 1540–1566. 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2010.00608.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thöni, C, Tyran, J-R, & Wengström, E (2012). Microfoundations of social capital. Journal of Public Economics, 96(7–8), 635–643. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traulsen, A, Torsten, R, & Milinski, M (2012). An economic experiment reveals that humans prefer pool punishment to maintain the commons. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279, 3716–3721. 10.1098/rspb.2012.0937CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyran, J-R, & Feld, LP (2006). Achieving compliance when legal sanctions are non-deterrent. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 108(1), 135–156. 10.1111/j.1467-9442.2006.00444.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 110–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelmer, J (2003). Linear public goods experiments: A meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 6, 299–310. 10.1023/A:1026277420119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, B., Li, C., De Silva, H., Bednarik, P., & Sigmund, K. (2014). The evolution of sanctioning institutions: An experimental approach to the social contract. Experimental Economics, 51(2), 285–303.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kamei et al. supplementary material

Appendix to Kamei, Putterman and Tyran, 2012 “State or Nature? Formal vs. Informal Sanctioning in the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods”
Download Kamei et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.6 MB