Collective agreements and social norms in impure public goods provision: Experimental evidence from farmers and foresters

IF 1.4 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Lukas Bonar Nainggolan , Alfons Oude Lansink , Jens Rommel , Julia Höhler
{"title":"Collective agreements and social norms in impure public goods provision: Experimental evidence from farmers and foresters","authors":"Lukas Bonar Nainggolan ,&nbsp;Alfons Oude Lansink ,&nbsp;Jens Rommel ,&nbsp;Julia Höhler","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2026.102579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Agricultural and forestry production are inherently connected to the provision of impure public goods, yet public good provision generally remains below socially optimal levels. One promising approach to increase provision are social norms and non-binding collective agreements facilitated through cooperatives, although existing evidence on their effectiveness is mixed. We conducted a threshold public goods experiment with 141 farmers and foresters from Greece and Italy to examine the effectiveness of collective agreements and the relationship between social norms and cooperation. Our results show that non-binding collective agreements significantly increase individual contributions. We contribute to the literature by showing that not only average social norms, but also their distribution, are correlated with individual contributions, with greater heterogeneity within groups associated with lower contributions. Overall, focal points are shaped by expectations of peers’ contributions. Two key implications follow: cooperatives can effectively facilitate collective action, and managing heterogeneity among farmers and foresters is essential for sustaining cooperation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"122 ","pages":"Article 102579"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804326000704","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Agricultural and forestry production are inherently connected to the provision of impure public goods, yet public good provision generally remains below socially optimal levels. One promising approach to increase provision are social norms and non-binding collective agreements facilitated through cooperatives, although existing evidence on their effectiveness is mixed. We conducted a threshold public goods experiment with 141 farmers and foresters from Greece and Italy to examine the effectiveness of collective agreements and the relationship between social norms and cooperation. Our results show that non-binding collective agreements significantly increase individual contributions. We contribute to the literature by showing that not only average social norms, but also their distribution, are correlated with individual contributions, with greater heterogeneity within groups associated with lower contributions. Overall, focal points are shaped by expectations of peers’ contributions. Two key implications follow: cooperatives can effectively facilitate collective action, and managing heterogeneity among farmers and foresters is essential for sustaining cooperation.
不纯公共物品提供中的集体协议和社会规范:来自农民和林农的实验证据
农业和林业生产本质上与提供不纯的公共产品有关,但公共产品的提供通常低于社会最优水平。增加供应的一个有希望的办法是通过合作社促进社会规范和无约束力的集体协议,尽管现有证据表明其有效性好坏参半。我们对来自希腊和意大利的141名农民和林农进行了一项门槛公共产品实验,以检验集体协议的有效性以及社会规范与合作之间的关系。我们的研究结果表明,非约束性集体协议显著增加了个人贡献。我们对文献的贡献是,不仅平均社会规范,而且它们的分布,都与个人贡献相关,群体内部更大的异质性与更低的贡献相关。总的来说,焦点是由对同伴贡献的期望塑造的。以下是两个关键影响:合作社可以有效地促进集体行动,管理农民和林农之间的异质性对于维持合作至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书