Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:05:42.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mill ownership and farmer's cooperative behavior: the case of Costa Rica coffee farmers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2017

ASTRID HOPFENSITZ Open the ORCID record for ASTRID HOPFENSITZ [Opens in a new window]  and
JOSEPA MIQUEL-FLORENSA
ASTRID HOPFENSITZ*
Affiliation:
Toulouse School of Economics, 21 Allee de Brienne, 31015, Toulouse, France
JOSEPA MIQUEL-FLORENSA*
Affiliation:
Toulouse School of Economics, 21 Allee de Brienne, 31015, Toulouse, France
*
*Email: astrid.hopfensitz@tse-fr.eu
**Email: pepita.miquel@tse-fr.eu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We analyze how Costa Rican coffee farmer's behavior in an experimental public good game depends on the institutional structure of the farmers buying point (cooperative vs. privately owned mills), and on the background of their game partners (partners selling to the same type of mill or not). We find that cooperative farmers do not display more public good orientation than private market farmers when playing with partners from the same type of mill. However, though farmers selling to private mills make no difference with respect to the background of partners, farmers selling to cooperatives significantly decrease contributions when paired with non-cooperative members. Finally, we study how self-selection into a mechanism that punishes the lowest contributors effects contributions both inside the group and with partners of the opposite background, and we show that it increases contributions by cooperative farmers interacting with non-cooperative farmers by more than 100%.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 623 - 648
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2017 

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.)

References

Banerjee, A., Mookherjee, D., Munshi, K., and Ray, D. (2001), ‘Inequality, Control Rights, and Rent Seeking: Sugar Cooperatives in Maharashtra’, Journal of Political Economy, 109: 138–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banuri, S. and Keefer, P. (2012), ‘Pro-social Behavior Where we Least Expect it? The Selection and Socialization of Intrinsically-Motivated Government (Tax!) Officials’, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Barmettler, F., Fehr, E., and Zehnder, C. (2012), ‘Big Experimenter is Watching You! Anonymity and Prosocial Behavior in the Laboratory’, Games and Economic Behavior, 75: 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhard, H., Fehr, E., and Fischbacher, U. (2006), ‘Group Affiliation and Altruistic Norm Enforcement’, American Economic Review, 96 (2): 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, J., Bulte, E., and van Soest, D. (2008), ‘Trust, Trustworthiness and Cooperation: Social Capital and Community Resource Management’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56: 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J. and Seki, E. (2011), ‘Do Social Preferences Increase Productivity? Field Experimental Evidence from Fishermen in Toyama Bay’, Economic Inquiry, 49 (2): 612–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J., Bowles, S., Gintis, H., and Sung-Ha, H. (2009), ‘Strong Reciprocity and Team Production: Theory and Evidence’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 71 (2): 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casaburi, L. and Macchiavello, R. (2015), ‘Loyalty, Exit and Enforcement: Evidence from a Kenya Dairy Cooperative’, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhuri, A. (2011), ‘Sustaining Cooperation in Laboratory Public Goods Experiments: A Selective Survey of the Literature’, Experimental Economics, 14 (1): 47–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, T. and Udry, C. (2010), ‘Learning About a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana’, American Economic Review, 100 (1): 35–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bo, P., Foster, A., and Putterman, L. (2010), ‘Institutions and Behavior: Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Democracy’, American Economic Review, 100: 2205–2229.Google Scholar
Fafchamps, M. and Lund, S. (2003), ‘Risk-sharing Networks in Rural Philipines’, Journal of Development Economics, 71: 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Huffman, D., and Sunde, U. (2015), ‘An Experimentally-Validated Survey Module of Economic Preferences’, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Falk, A. and Kosfeld, M. (2006), ‘The Hidden Costs of Control’, American Economic Review, 96 (5): 1611–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkinger, J., Fehr, E., Gaechter, S., and Winter-Ebmer, R. (2000), ‘A Simple Mechanism for the E client Provision of Public Goods: Experimental Evidence’, American Economic Review, 90 (1): 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., von Rosenbladt, B., Schupp, J., and Wagner, G. G. (2003), ‘A Nation-Wide Laboratory: Examining Trust and Trustworthiness by Integrating Behavioral Experiments into Representative Surveys’, IZA Discussion Paper No. 715.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gaechter, S. (2000), ‘Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments’, American Economic Review, 90 (4): 980–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Leibbrand, A. (2011), ‘A Field Study on Cooperativeness and Impatience in the Tragedy of the Commons’, Journal of Public Economics, 95 (9): 1144–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelcich, S., Guzman, R. A., Rodriguez-Sickert, C., Cardenas, J. C., and Castilla, J. (2012), ‘External Validity in Common Pool Resource Economic Experiments: Lessons from Co-managed Artisanal Benthic Fisheries in Chile’, Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goette, L., Huffman, D., and Meier, S. (2006), ‘The Impact of Group Membership on Cooperation and Norm Enforcement: Evidence using Random Assignment to Real Social Groups’, American Economic Review, 96 (2): 212–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosse, S., Putterman, L., and Rockenbach, B. (2011), ‘Monitoring in Teams: Using Laboratory Experiments to Study a Theory of the Firm’, Journal of the European Economic Association, 9 (4): 785–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. (2010), ‘The Weirdest People in the World?’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33: 61–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houser, D., Xiao, E., McCabe, K., and Smith, V. (2008), ‘When Punishment Fails: Research on Sanctions, Intentions and Non-Cooperation’, Games and Economic Behavior, 62 (2): 509–532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamei, K., Putterman, L., and Tyran, J. R. (2015), ‘State or Nature? Endogenous Formal Versus Informal Sanctions in the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods’, Experimental Economics, 18: 38–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, D. (2005), ‘Using Experimental Economics to Measure Social Capital and Predict Financial Decisions’, American Economic Review, 95 (5): 1688–1699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, D., Mobius, M., Rosenblat, T., and Szeidl, A. (2009), ‘Trust and Social Collateral’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124: 1307–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, D., Osei, R., Osei-Akoto, I., and Udry, C. (2014), ‘Agricultural Decisions after Relaxing Credit and Risk Constraints’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129: 597–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, J. and Leider, S. (2013), ‘Finding the Cost of Control’, Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kocher, M., Martinsson, P., Persson, E., and Wang, X. S. (2016), ‘Is There a Hidden Cost of Imposing a Minimum Contribution Level for Public Good Contributions?’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 56: 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranton, R., Pease, M., Sanders, S., and Huettel, S. (2016), ‘Group Bias, Identity, and Social Preferences’, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Ledyard, O. (1995), ‘Public Goods: Some Experimental Results’, in Kagel, J. and Roth, A. (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Markussen, T., Putterman, L., and Tyran, J. R. (2014), ‘Self-organization for Collective Action: An Experimental Study of Voting on Sanction Regimes’, Review of Economic Studies, 81: 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinsson, P. and Persson, E. (2016), ‘Public Goods and Minimum Provision Levels: Does the Institutional Formation Affect Cooperation?’, Working Papers in Economics: 655, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Martinsson, P., Medhin, H., and Persson, E. (2016), ‘Framing and Minimum Levels in Public Good Provision’, Working Papers in Economics: 656, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Mellizo, P., Carpenter, J., and Matthews, P. H. (2014), ‘Workplace Democracy in the Lab’, Industrial Relations Journal, 45: 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittone, L. and Ploner, M. (2015), ‘Cooperative Attitudes Among Workers of Social Cooperatives: Evidence from an Artefactual Field Experiment’, International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26: 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paige, J. (1997), Coffee and Power, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Putterman, L., Tyran, J. R., and Kamei, K. (2011), ‘Public Goods and Voting on Formal Sanction Schemes’, Journal of Public Economics, 95: 1213–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rustagi, D., Engel, S., and Kosfeld, M. (2010), ‘Conditional Cooperation and Costly Monitoring Explain Success in Forest Commons Management’, Science, 330: 961–965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnedler, W. and Vadovic, R. (2011), ‘Legitimacy of Control’, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 20 (4): 985–1009.Google Scholar
Simmons, R. and Birchall, J. (2008), ‘The Role of Co-operatives in Poverty Reduction: Network Perspectives’, The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37: 2131–2140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sukhtankar, S. (2012), ‘Sweetening the Deal? Political Connections and Sugar Mills in India’, AEJ: Applied Economics, 4 (3): 43–63.Google Scholar
Sukhtankar, S. (2015), ‘Does Firm Ownership Structure Matter? Evidence from Sugar Mills in India’, Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1979), ‘An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict’, in Austin, W. G. and Worchel, S. (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 34–47.Google Scholar
Voors, M., Turley, T., Kontoleon, A., Bulte, E., and List, J. (2011), ‘Using Artefactual Field Experiments to Learn About the Incentives for Sustainable Forest Use in Developing Economies’, American Economic Review. Papers and Proceedings, 101: 329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voors, M., Turley, T., Kontoleon, A., Bulte, E., and List, J. (2012), ‘Exploring Whether Behavior in Context-Free Experiments is Predictive of Behavior in the Field: Evidence from Lab and Field Experiments in Rural Sierra Leone’, Economics Letters, 114: 308–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegelmeyer, A., Schmelz, K., and Ploner, M. (2012), ‘Hidden Costs of Control: Four Repetitions and An Explenation’, Experimental Economics, 15: 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hopfensitz and Miquel-Florensa supplementary material

Hopfensitz and Miquel-Florensa supplementary material

Download Hopfensitz and Miquel-Florensa supplementary material(File)
File 452.2 KB