There is strong evidence that people exploit their bargaining power in competitivemarkets butnot inbilateral bargainingsituations. Thereisalsostrong evidence that people exploit free-riding opportunities in voluntary cooperation games. Yet, when they are given the opportunity to punish free riders, stable cooperation is maintained, although punishment is costly for those who punish. This paper asks whether there is a simple common principle that can explain this puzzling evidence. We show that if some people care about equity the puzzles can be resolved. It turns out that the economic environment determines whether the fair types or the selesh types dominate equilibrium behavior.

/pdf/a-theory-of-fairness-competition-and-cooperation-20ykvpovfq.pdf

A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation

There is strong evidence that people exploit their bargaining power in competitive markets but not in bilateral bargaining situations. There is also strong evidence that people exploit free-riding opportunities in voluntary cooperation games. Yet, when they are given the opportunity to punish free riders, stable cooperation is maintained although punishment is costly for those who punish. This paper asks whether there is a simple common principle that can explain this puzzling evidence. We show that if a fraction of the people exhibits inequality aversion the puzzles can be resolved.

/pdf/a-theory-of-fairness-competition-and-cooperation-445axsa22c.pdf

A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation

We demonstrate that a simple model, constructed on the premise that people are motivated by both their pecuniary payoff and their relative payoff standing, organizes a large and seemingly disparate set of laboratory observations as one consistent pattern The model is incomplete information but nevertheless posed entirely in terms of directly observable variables The model explains observations from games where equity is thought to be a factor, such as ultimatum and dictator, games where reciprocity is thought to play a role, such as the prisoner's dilemma and gift exchange, and games where competitive behavior is observed, such as Bertrand markets (JEL C78, C90, D63, D64, H41)

/pdf/erc-a-theory-of-equity-reciprocity-and-competition-9lhkqwqjzg.pdf

ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition

When people make donations to privately provided public goods, such as charity, there may be many factors influencing their decision other than altruism. Social pressure, guilt, sympathy, or simply a desire for a "warm glow" may all be important. This paper considers such impure altruism formally and develops a wide set of implications. In particular, this paper discusses the invariance proposition of public goods, solves for the sufficient conditions for neutrality to hold, examines the optimal tax treatment of charitable giving, and calibrates the model based on econometric studies in order to consider policy experiments. Impure altruism is shown to be more consistent with observed patterns of giving than the conventional pure altruism approach, and to have policy implications that may differ widely from those of the conventional models. Copyright 1990 by Royal Economic Society.

https://creationetfinancement.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/impure-altruism-and-donations-to-public-goods.pdf

Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving*

People like to help those who are helping them and to hurt those who are hurting them. Outcomes rejecting such motivations are called fairness equilibria. Outcomes are mutual-max when each person maximizes the other's material payoffs, and mutual-min when each person minimizes the other's payoffs. It is shown that every mutual-max or mutual-min Nash equilibrium is a fairness equilibrium. If payoffs are small, fairness equilibria are roughly the set of mutual-max and mutual-min outcomes; if payoffs are large, fairness equilibria are roughly the set of Nash equilibria. Several economic examples are considered and possible welfare implications of fairness are explored. Copyright 1993 by American Economic Association.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2117561.pdf

Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics

Models of giving have often been based on altruism. Examples include charity and intergenerational transfers. The literatures on both subjects have centered around neutrality hypotheses: charity is subject to complete crowding out, while intergenerational transfers are subject to Ricardian equivalence. This paper formally develops a model of giving in which altruism is not "pure." In particular, people are assumed to get a "warm glow" from giving. Contrary to the previous literature, this model generates identifiable comparative statics results that show that crowding out of charity is incomplete and that government debt will have Keynesian effects.

Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence

Subjects in economic laboratory experiments have clearly expressed an interest in behaving unselfishly. They cooperate in prisoners’ dilemma games, they give to public goods, and they leave money on the table when bargaining. While some are tempted to call this behavior irrational, economists should ask if this unselfish and altruistic behavior is indeed self-interested. That is, can subjects’ concerns for altruism or fairness be expressed in the economists’ language of a well-behaved preference ordering? If so, then behavior is consistent and meets our definition of rationality. This paper explores this question by applying the axioms of revealed preference to the altruistic actions of subjects. If subjects adhere to these axioms, such as GARP, then we can infer that a continuous, convex, and monotonic utility function could have generated their choices. This means that an economic model is sufficient to understand the data and that, in fact, altruism is rational. We do this by offering subjects several opportunities to share a surplus with another anonymous subject. However, the costs of sharing and the surplus available vary across decisions. This price and income variation creates budgets for altruistic activity that allow us to test for an underlying preference ordering. We found that subjects exhibit a significant degree of rationally altruistic behavior. Over 98% of our subjects made choices that are consistent with utility maximization. Only a quarter of subjects are selfish money-maximizers, and the rest show varying degrees of altruism. Perhaps most strikingly, almost half of the subjects exhibited behavior that is exactly consistent with one of three standard CES utility functions: perfectly selfish, perfect substitutes, or Leontief. Those with Leontief preferences are always dividing the surplus equally, while those with perfect substitutes preferences give everything away when the price of giving is less than one, but keep everything when the price of giving is greater than one. Using the data on choices, we estimated a population of utility functions and applied these to predict the results of other studies. We found that our results could successfully characterize the outcomes of other studies, indicating still further that altruism can be captured in an economic model.

/pdf/giving-according-to-garp-an-experimental-test-of-the-3s8kg4k3d8.pdf

Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism

https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/econ335/out%20f08/why%20free%20ride.pdf

Why free ride?: Strategies and learning in public goods experiments

We study gender differences in altruism by examining a modieed dictator game with varying incomes and prices. Our results indicate that the question “which is the fair sex?” has a complicated answer—when altruism is expensive, women are kinder, but when it is cheap, men are more altruistic. That is, we end that the male and female “demand curves for altruism” cross, and that men are more responsive to price changes. Furthermore, men are more likely to be either perfectly selesh or perfectly seleess, whereas women tend to be “equalitarians” who prefer to share evenly.

/pdf/which-is-the-fair-sex-gender-differences-in-altruism-4sab0tf6l5.pdf

James Andreoni

Papers

Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving*

Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence

Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism

Why free ride?: Strategies and learning in public goods experiments

Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism