人们是否愿意自愿为公共产品做出贡献?行为游戏实验的结果。

IF 0.4 Q4 ECONOMICS
Eva Sirakovová, A. Čaplánová
{"title":"人们是否愿意自愿为公共产品做出贡献?行为游戏实验的结果。","authors":"Eva Sirakovová, A. Čaplánová","doi":"10.2478/zireb-2021-0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the paper, we discuss the possibilities of alternative provision of public goods using the individual voluntary contributions. We use the data from the behavioral public goods game based on the model of voluntary contribution mechanism. We examine how people’s decisions about voluntary contributions to public goods change when the environment changes. The participants of the game were divided into small (5 persons) and large (10 persons) groups. During the game participants were asked to invest experimental money to different types of accounts, i.e. private account, Group account 1 and Group account 2. Using the game, we also examine the impact of a provision point on voluntary contributions. Based on the analysis of the data from this behavioral game, we found that the provision point is effective only if the participants are members of a small group. When the participants were members of both a small group and of a large group the provision point was not effective. When the income of participants was considered, we found that participants with higher experimental income were less willing to voluntarily contribute to financing of a public good.","PeriodicalId":42298,"journal":{"name":"Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business","volume":"24 1","pages":"63 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are People Willing to Voluntarily Contribute to Public Goods? The Results from the Behavioral Game Experiment.\",\"authors\":\"Eva Sirakovová, A. Čaplánová\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/zireb-2021-0020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In the paper, we discuss the possibilities of alternative provision of public goods using the individual voluntary contributions. We use the data from the behavioral public goods game based on the model of voluntary contribution mechanism. We examine how people’s decisions about voluntary contributions to public goods change when the environment changes. The participants of the game were divided into small (5 persons) and large (10 persons) groups. During the game participants were asked to invest experimental money to different types of accounts, i.e. private account, Group account 1 and Group account 2. Using the game, we also examine the impact of a provision point on voluntary contributions. Based on the analysis of the data from this behavioral game, we found that the provision point is effective only if the participants are members of a small group. When the participants were members of both a small group and of a large group the provision point was not effective. When the income of participants was considered, we found that participants with higher experimental income were less willing to voluntarily contribute to financing of a public good.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"63 - 75\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/zireb-2021-0020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/zireb-2021-0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文讨论了利用个人自愿捐款替代公共品供给的可能性。本文采用基于自愿贡献机制模型的行为公共产品博弈数据。我们考察了当环境发生变化时,人们关于自愿捐赠公共物品的决定是如何变化的。游戏的参与者被分成小组(5人)和大组(10人)。在游戏过程中,参与者被要求将实验资金投入不同类型的账户,即私人账户、组账户1和组账户2。通过这个游戏,我们还考察了供给点对自愿捐款的影响。通过对这一行为博弈数据的分析,我们发现供给点只有在参与者是小团体成员的情况下才有效。当参与者同时是一个小团体和一个大团体的成员时,提供点是无效的。当考虑参与者的收入时,我们发现实验收入较高的参与者不太愿意自愿为公共产品融资。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are People Willing to Voluntarily Contribute to Public Goods? The Results from the Behavioral Game Experiment.
Abstract In the paper, we discuss the possibilities of alternative provision of public goods using the individual voluntary contributions. We use the data from the behavioral public goods game based on the model of voluntary contribution mechanism. We examine how people’s decisions about voluntary contributions to public goods change when the environment changes. The participants of the game were divided into small (5 persons) and large (10 persons) groups. During the game participants were asked to invest experimental money to different types of accounts, i.e. private account, Group account 1 and Group account 2. Using the game, we also examine the impact of a provision point on voluntary contributions. Based on the analysis of the data from this behavioral game, we found that the provision point is effective only if the participants are members of a small group. When the participants were members of both a small group and of a large group the provision point was not effective. When the income of participants was considered, we found that participants with higher experimental income were less willing to voluntarily contribute to financing of a public good.
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
10
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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