Abstract
This paper investigates systemic risk that emerges from the interplay between uncertain returns to individual actions, uncertainty on others’ behavior and all this filtered through individual attitudes toward risk. We design a finitely repeated linear public good experiment based on a voluntary contribution mechanism and analyze the effect of risky and uncertain returns on subjects’ contributions. Results from a baseline treatment without uncertainty are compared with two risky treatments characterized by different values for the marginal per capita return. In the treatments with risk, subjects are randomly assigned to one out of three feasible marginal per capita returns, independently of what their individual contribution was. Results show that a sufficient level of uncertainty leads to significantly lower individual contributions. Furthermore, in a system with lower contributions due to uncertainty, subjects’ risk aversion enhances the systemic risk, leading the system to collapse.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Chaudhuri (2011) for a detailed survey on cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments.
The authors use a variant of the strategy method: subjects are asked to indicate, for each average contribution level of the group members, how much they want to contribute to the public good.
The case in which all participants get the same benefit from the public good is not unrealistic. Consider, for instance, the public healthcare system. A person who receives medical care by a doctor with good skills does not exclude the possibility that other people may receive good care as well.
For every lottery, the alternative outcome is a zero payoff. For a more detailed explanation of this test, see García-Gallego et al. (2012).
We must not include the MPCR of all members of the group, since this would result in a collinearity problem.
Variable r is equal to the difference between \(\bar{\alpha }\) and \(\alpha \). This variable takes the values of 0, 0.3 and 0.15 for treatments BL, HR and LR, respectively.
References
Acemoglu D, Ozdaglar A, Tahbaz-Salehi A (2015) Systemic risk and stability in financial networks. Am Econ Rev 105(2):564–608
Andreoni J (1988) Why free ride? Strategies and learning in public good experiments. J Public Econ 37:291–304
Andreoni J, Croson R (2008) Partners versus strangers random rematching in public goods experiments. In: Plott C, Smith VL (eds) Handbook of experimental economics results. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 776–783
Au W (2004) Criticality and environmental uncertainty in step-level public goods dilemmas. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 8(1):40–61
Barreda-Tarrazona I, García-Gallego A, Georgantzis N, Ziros N (2018) Market games as social dilemmas. J Econ Behav Organ 155:435–444
Berardi S, Tedeschi G (2017) From banks’ strategies to financial (in)stability. Int Rev Econ Finance 47:255–272
Boulu-Reshef B, Brott SH, Zylbersztejn A (2017) Does uncertainty deter provision of public goods? Revue Économique 5:16–23
Brekke KA, Hauge KE, Thori LJ, Nyborg K (2011) Playing with the good guys. A public good game with endogenous group formation. J Public Econ 95.9–10:1111–1118
Budescu DV, Rapoport A, Suleiman R (1990) Resource dilemmas with environmental uncertainty and asymmetric players. Eur J Soc Psychol 20(6):475–487
Chaudhuri A (2011) Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature. Exp Econ 14:47–83
Colasante A, Russo A (2017) Voting for the distribution rule in a public good game with heterogeneous endowments. J Econ Interact Coord 12(3):443–467
Dickinson DL (1998) The voluntary contributions mechanism with uncertain group payoffs. J Econ Behav Organ 35(4):517–533
Doerrenberg P (2015) Does the use of tax revenue matter for tax compliance behavior? Econ Lett 128:30–34
Dugar S (2013) Non-monetary incentives and opportunistic behavior: evidence from a laboratory public good game. Econ Inq 51(2):1374–1388
Fehr E, Gächter S (2002) Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415(6868):137
Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q J Econ 114(3):817–868
Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp Econ 10(2):171–178
Fischbacher U, Gächter S (2010) Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public goods experiments. Am Econ Rev 100(1):541–556
Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Fehr E (2001) Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ Lett 71(3):397–404
Fischbacher U, Schudy S, Teyssier S (2014) Heterogeneous reactions to heterogeneity in returns from public goods. Soc Choice Welf 43(1):195–217
Freixas X, Parigi BM, Rochet J-C (2000) Systemic risk, interbank relations, and liquidity provision by the central bank. J Money Credit Bank 32(3):611–638
García-Gallego A, Georgantzís N, Jaramillo-Gutiérrez A, Parravano M (2012) The lottery-panel task for bi-dimensional parameter-free elicitation of risk attitudes. Revista Internacional de Sociología 70(1):53–72
Isaac RM, Walker JM, Thomas SH (1984) Divergent evidence on free riding: an experimental examination of possible explanations. Public Choice 43(2):113–149
Kaufman GG, Scott KE (2003) What is systemic risk, and do bank regulators retard or contribute to it? Indep Rev 7(3):371–391
Levati MV, Morone A (2013) Voluntary contributions with risky and uncertain marginal returns: the importance of the parameter values. J Public Econ Theory 15(5):736–744
Levati MV, Morone A, Fiore A (2009) Voluntary contributions with imperfect information: an experimental study. Public Choice 138(1):199–216
Listokin Y, Schizer DM (2013) I like to pay taxes: Taxpayer support for governemt spending and the efficiency of the tax system. Tax Law Rev 66:179
Masciandaro D, Passarelli F (2013) Financial systemic risk: Taxation or regulation? J Bank Finance 37(2):587–596
Messick DM, Allison ST, Samuelson CD (1988) Framing and communication effects on group members’ responses to environmental and social uncertainty. Appl Behav Econ 2:677–700
Milinski M, Sommerfeld RD, Krambech H-J, Reed FA, Marotzke J (2008) The collective-risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dangerous climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(7):2291–2294
Morone A, Temerario T (2018) Is dyads’ behaviour conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. J Behav Exp Econ 73:76–85
Neugebauer T, Perote J, Schmidt U, Loos M (2009) Selfish-biased conditional cooperation: on the decline of contributions in repeated public goods experiments. J Econ Psychol 30(1):52–60
Ozdemir O, Morone A (2014) An experimental investigation of insurance decisions in low probability and high loss risk situations. J Econ Interact Coord 9(1):53–67
Recchioni MC, Tedeschi G (2017) From bond yield to macroeconomic instability: a parsimonious affine model. Eur J Oper Res 262(3):1116–1135
Sabater-Grande G, Georgantzis N (2002) Accounting for risk aversion in repeated prisoners’ dilemma games: an experimental test. J Econ Behav Organ 48(1):37–50
Schwarcz SL (2008) Systemic risk. Georget Law J 97:193–249
Teyssier S (2012) Inequity and risk aversion in sequential public good games. Public Choice 151(1):91–119
Wit A, Wilke H (1998) Public good provision under environmental and social uncertainty. Eur J Soc Psychol 28(2):249–256
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Financial support by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Grant ECO2015-68469-R AEI/FEDER) and Universitat Jaume I (P1-1B2015-48) are gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A: Instructions to subjects (translated from Spanish)
Appendix A: Instructions to subjects (translated from Spanish)
Thank you very much for being here. The instructions are identical to all participants. Read them carefully. If you have any questions or concerns, please raise your hand and we will answer your questions individually. During the session, it is strictly forbidden to communicate with the other participants. The unit of experimental money will be the ECU (Experimental Currency Unit), where \(100~\hbox {ECU} = 10~\hbox {Euro}\). At the end of the session, one of your decisions will be randomly chosen. Note that all choices are equally likely. The experimental payoff corresponding to the selected decision will be calculated, converted to Euro, and paid to you (privately) in cash.
The Experiment (Baseline (BL) treatment)
The experiment consists of 10 independent periods, in which you will interact with 2 other participants in the session. The 3 of you form a group that will remain THE SAME in all periods. The identity of the participants of your group will not be revealed to you at all during the whole session. At the beginning of each period, each participant receives an endowment of 100 ECU. In any period, each member of the group has a decision to make.
Every period, you have to decide how much of your endowment you want to contribute to a common project. Your contribution will be an amount not smaller than 0 ECU and not greater than 100 ECU. Furthermore, it must be an integer number. You will keep for yourself any amount of your endowment that you decide not to invest in the common project (“ECU you keep”).
In every period, your earnings consist of two parts:
- 1.
the “ECU you keep” \(= [100 - \hbox {your contribution}]\) ECU;
- 2.
the “income from the project.”
The “income from the project” is calculated by adding up the contributions of the 3 members of your group and multiplying the resulting sum by a number that we call \(\alpha \). That is:
Income from the project \(= [\hbox {Your contribution} + \hbox {Your partners' contribution}] \times \alpha \)
The multiplier \(\alpha \) is equal to 0.6. [Treatment HR] The multiplier \(\alpha \) can be either 0.9 or 0.6 or 0.3, [Treatment LR]: The multiplier \(\alpha \) can be either 0.75 or 0.6 or 0.45, where each value is equally likely. You have to decide about your contribution without knowing the value of \(\alpha \).
The income from the common project is determined in the same way for every member of the group, and it is independent of the size of your individual contributions.
[Treatments HR and LR] The ”income from the project” is determined as follows: each member is randomly assigned a number ranged between 1 and 3 regardless of the size of his/her contribution. Given that several (or all of them) members of the group can be assigned the same number, this is not necessarily a ranking. In case the extracted number is different for each subject, the subject with number 1 receives \(\alpha =0.9\) [Treatment LR: \(\alpha = 0.75\)] from the common project; the subject with number 2 receives \(\alpha =0.6\), and the subject with number 3 receives \(\alpha = 0.3\) [Treatment LR: \(\alpha =0.45\)]. If it is the case that several (or even all subjects) subjects get the same number, ties are solved as follows:
If all three members get the same number (1, 2 or 3), each member receives \(\alpha = (0.9 + 0.6 + 0.3)/3 = 0.6\) [Treatment LR: \(\alpha = (0.75 + 0.6 + 0.45)/3 = 0.6\)];
If two members get number 1 or 2, they both receive \(\alpha = (0.9 + 0.6 )/2 = 0.75\) [Treatment LR: \(\alpha = (0.75 + 0.6 )/2 = 0.675\)] and the third member receives \(\alpha = 0.3\) [Treatment LR: \(\alpha = 0.45\)];
If two members get number 2 or 3, they both receive \(\alpha =(0.6 + 0.3)/2 = 0.45\) [Treatment LR: \(\alpha = (0.6 + 0.45)/2\)] and the first ranked member receives \(\alpha \) = 0.9 [Treatment LR: \(\alpha =0.75\)];
[Treatment BL] Example: If the sum of the contributions of the three members is 60 ECU, each member receives an income from the project equal to \((0.6 \times 60) = 36\) ECU.
[Treatment HR] Example: If the sum of the contributions of the three members is 60 ECU and each member is assigned a different number, the subject with number 1 receives an income from the project of \((0.9 \times 60) = 54\) ECU [Treatment LR: \((0.75 \times 60) = 45\) ECU]; the one with number 2 receives \((0.6 \times 60) = 36\) ECU and the subject with number 3 receives \((0.3 \times 60) = 18\) ECU [Treatment LR: \((0.45 \times 60)=27\) ECU]. However, for instance:
if all members are assigned the same number (1, 2 or 3), each receives \((0.6 \times 60) = 36\) ECU;
if two members are assigned the same number (1 or 2), they each receive \([(0.9 + 0.6)/2 \times 60] = 45\) ECU [Treatment LR: \([(0.75 + 0.6)/2 \times 60] = 0.67 \times 60= 40.2\) ECU]; the other subject receives \((0.3 \times 60) = 18\) ECU [Treatment LR: \((0.45 \times 60) = 27\) ECU];
if two members are assigned the same number (2 or 3), they each receive \([(0.6 + 0.3)/2 \times 60] = 27\) ECU [Treatment LR: \([(0.6+ 0.45)/2 \times 60] = 0.525 \times 60 = 31.5\) ECU]; the other member of the group receives \((0.9 \times 60) = 54\) ECU [Treatment LR: \((0.75 \times 60) = 45\) ECU].
At the end of each period you will receive information about the individual contribution of your partners in the group and your own period-earnings. Before the experiment starts, you will have to answer some control questions to verify your understanding of the rules of the experiment. Please remain seated quietly until the experiment starts. If you have any questions please raise your hand.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Colasante, A., García-Gallego, A., Georgantzis, N. et al. Voluntary contributions in a system with uncertain returns: a case of systemic risk. J Econ Interact Coord 15, 111–132 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11403-019-00276-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11403-019-00276-z