公司合法性游戏。政策、框架和信息影响的实验室实验

L. Becchetti, Vittorio Pelligra, F. Rossetti
{"title":"公司合法性游戏。政策、框架和信息影响的实验室实验","authors":"L. Becchetti, Vittorio Pelligra, F. Rossetti","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2808004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A company that pursues illicit practices (e.g., money laundering, tax dodging, corruption of public officials in procurement races, etc.) may underprice and crowd out competitors that behave legally, thereby eroding the public good of legality and integrity. Recently born institutional legality ratings tackle this problem by signaling companies with excellent legality record to consumers. Redistributive policy actions aimed to tax “defectors” (i.e. buyers of unrated products) in favor of “co-operators” (i.e. buyers of “legality-rated” products) may further enforce legality, and fight corruption. We analyze the impact of the legality-rating frame by means of a randomized experiment. The experiment accounts for the effects of fiscal policies that redistribute income from defectors to co-operators either in presence or in absence of the legality frame. Our findings document that the redistribution mechanism, the legality frame and the conformity information design contribute to alleviate the prisoner’s dilemma and generate significant deviations from the Nash Equilibrium.","PeriodicalId":416571,"journal":{"name":"CEIS: Centre for Economic & International Studies Working Paper Series","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Corporate Legality Game. A Lab Experiment on the Impact of Policies, Frames and Information\",\"authors\":\"L. Becchetti, Vittorio Pelligra, F. Rossetti\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2808004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A company that pursues illicit practices (e.g., money laundering, tax dodging, corruption of public officials in procurement races, etc.) may underprice and crowd out competitors that behave legally, thereby eroding the public good of legality and integrity. Recently born institutional legality ratings tackle this problem by signaling companies with excellent legality record to consumers. Redistributive policy actions aimed to tax “defectors” (i.e. buyers of unrated products) in favor of “co-operators” (i.e. buyers of “legality-rated” products) may further enforce legality, and fight corruption. We analyze the impact of the legality-rating frame by means of a randomized experiment. The experiment accounts for the effects of fiscal policies that redistribute income from defectors to co-operators either in presence or in absence of the legality frame. Our findings document that the redistribution mechanism, the legality frame and the conformity information design contribute to alleviate the prisoner’s dilemma and generate significant deviations from the Nash Equilibrium.\",\"PeriodicalId\":416571,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CEIS: Centre for Economic & International Studies Working Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CEIS: Centre for Economic & International Studies Working Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2808004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CEIS: Centre for Economic & International Studies Working Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2808004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

从事非法行为的公司(例如,洗钱、逃税、在采购竞赛中使公职人员腐败等)可能会压低价格并排挤合法行为的竞争对手,从而损害合法和诚信的公共利益。最近出现的机构合法性评级,通过向消费者推荐具有良好合法性记录的公司,解决了这一问题。旨在向“叛逃者”(即未评级产品的购买者)征税以支持“合作者”(即“合法评级”产品的购买者)的再分配政策行动可能会进一步加强合法性,并打击腐败。我们通过随机实验分析了合法性评价框架的影响。该实验解释了财政政策的影响,即在存在或不存在法律框架的情况下,将叛逃者的收入重新分配给合作者。研究结果表明,再分配机制、合法性框架和从众信息设计有助于缓解囚徒困境,并产生与纳什均衡的显著偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Corporate Legality Game. A Lab Experiment on the Impact of Policies, Frames and Information
A company that pursues illicit practices (e.g., money laundering, tax dodging, corruption of public officials in procurement races, etc.) may underprice and crowd out competitors that behave legally, thereby eroding the public good of legality and integrity. Recently born institutional legality ratings tackle this problem by signaling companies with excellent legality record to consumers. Redistributive policy actions aimed to tax “defectors” (i.e. buyers of unrated products) in favor of “co-operators” (i.e. buyers of “legality-rated” products) may further enforce legality, and fight corruption. We analyze the impact of the legality-rating frame by means of a randomized experiment. The experiment accounts for the effects of fiscal policies that redistribute income from defectors to co-operators either in presence or in absence of the legality frame. Our findings document that the redistribution mechanism, the legality frame and the conformity information design contribute to alleviate the prisoner’s dilemma and generate significant deviations from the Nash Equilibrium.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信