SURVEY OF EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS 5 Experiments in the Indian Context
Over the past few years, experimental economics has become increasingly visible in research activity in India. The concluding part of this survey offers a brief overview of experiments conducted in the Indian context. These have been largely field experiments.
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
T
The first result surveyed here is a study of institutional corruption. Bertrand et al (2007) studied the allocation of drivers’ licences in Delhi by randomly assigning 822 driving licence applicants to one of three categories – bonus, a category where individuals were paid a bonus for obtaining a permanent driving licence quickly (within 32 days of obtaining their learner’s licence); lesson, a category that was offered free driving lessons; and a comparison category. The first two categories were found to be more likely to obtain licences. However, bonus group members were more likely to make extralegal payments to obtain a licence. Also, individuals in the bonus group were more likely to obtain licences without actually knowing how to drive. This showed that corruption did not merely reflect transfers from citizens, but also distorted allocation.
In a randomised field experiment, experimenters separate participants into two or more groups – a treatment group (or groups) and a control group. Members of the treatment group receive a particular intervention, which the control group does not. This methodology is well suited to gauge the efficacy of the intervention. Sometimes randomised experiments occur naturally. Banerjee et al (2007) presented the results of two randomised experiments conducted in primary schools in Mumbai and Vadodara. A remedial education programme, Balsakhi, hired young women to teach students lagging behind in basic literacy and numeracy skills. It increased the average test scores of all children in treatment schools by a 0.28 standard deviation, mostly due to large gains by children at the bottom of the test-score distribution. A computerassisted learning programme focusing on maths increased scores by a 0.47 standard deviation. One year after the programme, the initial gains remained significant for targeted children, but they faded to about a 0.10 standard deviation.
A paper by Chattopadhyay and Duflo (2004) used political reservations for women in India to study the impact of women’s leadership on policy decisions. Following a constitutional amendment in 1992, one-third of gram panchayat pradhan (president) positions in India have been randomly reserved for women. Village councils are responsible for providing many local public goods in rural areas. Using a data set that the authors collected on 265 village councils in one district each in West Bengal (Birbhum) and Rajasthan (Udaipur), they compared the type of public goods provided in reserved and unreserved village councils. They showed that reservation affected the types of public goods provided. Specifically, leaders invested more in infrastructure that was directly relevant to the needs of their own genders. These results indicated that a politician’s gender did influence policy decisions. More generally, they provided new evidence on the political process. In particular, they provided strong evidence that the identity of a decision-maker influenced policy decisions. This provided empirical support to political economy models that seek to enrich the Downsian model. The results were consistent with earlier evidence that showed that US senators’ votes did not reflect either the wishes of their constituency or their party, and work that indicated that in Indian states where a large share of seats was reserved for minorities in the legislative assembly, the level of transfers targeted at these minorities was higher. This study of village councils had the advantage of being based on a randomised experiment where identification was entirely transparent.
Public Goods Allocation
A number of experiments have studied public goods allocation. Some of them have already been summarised in the section on public goods. The public goods problem, either viewed as a problem of extraction or that of contribution, has a long history in social science. The experimental design in Chakravarty et al (2010a) used a standard VCM game with a moderately large group of 10 and face-to-face communication. The subjects, who were villagers in the Gori-Ganga basin of the central Himalayas, were not rematched every period. A noteworthy general observation was that even with a relatively low marginal per capita return (MPCR = 0.2) and a large group, there was a steady contribution rate of around 55%, which diminished slightly at the end of the session to around 50%. The paper also delved into the demographic characteristics of the subject pool and found that individual contributions to the common pool were determined by gender, age, caste, literacy and history of cooperation in the experiment. However, face-toface communication was not seen to increase average individual contributions to the common pool.
Experiments involving the characteristics of individual preferences have also been carried out. A study by Bansal et al (2010) made two important contributions to the literature by studying consumer attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) foods.
First, given that India is a developing country, it elicited willingnessto-pay for similar food products that differed only in their GM content. Second, and more importantly, it examined how probabilistic information mattered in the formation of food preferences. The paper advanced a definition of consumers who were weakly GM averse; that is, those who did not react to probabilistic information unless it came in the form of a label. An experiment involving auctions of food products was designed to estimate weak GM aversion on the part of such consumers. In this experiment, about one-fifth of GM-averse subjects were weakly averse. The presence of such consumers may have implications for the potential market for labelled GM foods.
Chakravarty and Roy (2009) used the multiple price list method and a recursive expected utility theory of smooth ambiguity to elicit attitudes to risky and ambiguous prospects. In particular, they investigated if there were differences in agent behaviour under uncertainty over gain amounts vis-à-vis uncertainty over loss amounts. On an aggregate level, they found that subjects were risk averse over gain and risk seeking over losses, displaying a “reflection effect”, and that they were mildly ambiguity averse over gains and mildly ambiguity seeking over losses. Further analysis showed that on an individual level, with respect to both risky and ambiguous prospects, there was limited incidence of reflection effects where subjects were risk or ambiguity averse (seeking) in gains and seeking (averse) in losses, though this incidence was higher for ambiguous prospects. A very high proportion of such cases of reflection exhibited risk (ambiguity) aversion in gains and risk (ambiguity) seeking in losses, with the reverse effect being significantly present in the case of risk but almost absent in the case of ambiguity. Finally, the results suggested that reflection across gains and losses was not an individual trait but depended on whether the form of uncertainty was precise or ambiguous since we rarely find an individual who exhibits reflection in both risky and ambiguous prospects.
Chakravarty et al (2010c) reported results from an experiment comparing the effects of vague versus precise pre-play communication in a highly competitive two-player game with conflicting interests. In the classic traveller’s dilemma game, non-binding precise messages about the intent of play are pure cheap talk. The authors conjectured that a form of imprecise pre-play communication whereby subjects could submit ill-defined messages might help foster cooperation because of their vagueness. Comparing behaviour, both across modes of communication and to a baseline case without communication, the findings suggested that cooperation was highest when players could communicate using precise numerical messages. When communication with ill-defined messages was allowed, then conditional on receiving a message, subjects acted more cooperatively than when no message was received. However, overall, the ability to exchange ill-defined messages did not substantially improve cooperation.
Decisions with uncertain outcomes are often made by one party in settings where another party bears the consequences. Whenever an individual is delegated to make decisions that affect others, such as in a typical corporate structure, does he or she make decisions that reflect the risk preferences of the party bearing the consequences? Chakravarty et al (2010b) examined
August 27, 2011 vol xlvi no 35
SURVEY OF EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS
this question in two simple settings, lottery choices and sealed bid auctions, using controlled laboratory experiments. They found that when an individual made a decision for an anonymous stranger, there was a tendency to exhibit less risk aversion. This reduction in risk aversion was relative to his or her preferences, and also relative to his or her belief about the preferences of others. This result has significant implications for the design of contracts between principals and agents.
People care about relative, not absolute, income. A paper by Carlsson et al (2009) investigated the importance of relative income within and between castes in the Indian caste system using a choice experimental approach. The results indicated that slightly more than half of the marginal utility of income on average came from some kind of relative income effect. This was comparable to the results from studies in other countries. Belonging to a low caste and having a low family income were associated with a higher concern for relative income. Moreover an increase in the mean income of the caste to which the individual belonged, everything else held constant, reduced utility for the individual. Thus, the negative welfare effect of having a reduced relative income compared to the own caste average income dominated the positive welfare effect due to increased relative income of the own caste compared to the income of other castes.
Measuring Social Inequality
Carlsson et al (2003) measured social inequality aversion through a “veil of ignorance” experiment using students at Jadavpur University. Choosing from behind a veil of ignorance, or choosing between societies without knowing what characteristics one would have in different societies, including where you would be placed, has been long used to judge the fairness of societies. However, empirical work has been relatively scanty. In this study with 364 students from Jadavpur University, respondents made eight pair-wise choices between societies A and B. They were given information on the highest, lowest and average income in each society and average income as well as degree of inequality was always higher in society A compared to society B. The results enabled the authors to estimate individual specific relative risk aversion, which may be interpreted as social inequality aversion, and also econometrically test the determinants of such risk aversion. The median relative risk aversion was found to be quite high at 3, and independent of caste.
What are the mechanisms through which social discrimination affects individual achievement? A growing literature in social psychology on the stereotype threat finds that stereotype-based expectations influence individual performance in the domain of the stereotype. Hoff and Pandey (2006) investigated whether public revelation of social identity affected cognitive task performance and responses to economic opportunities by young boys in Indian villages (sixth and seventh graders drawn from the top and bottom rungs of the caste hierarchy). The subjects were asked to learn and then perform a task with incentives and the authors determined when they would know their castes. In the control condition, the subjects were anonymous within the six-person group. In the experimental condition, the experimenter revealed the names and castes of the subjects. In the anonymous condition, there was no significant difference between the performance of the low-caste and high-caste subjects. However, when the caste was revealed, a significant gap appeared, which was because of a 20% decline in the performance of the low-caste students.
Narayan and Jain (2010) investigated the challenge of designing a performance-based incentive scheme for school teachers. When teachers specialised in different subjects in a society with social prejudice, a performance-based pay that depended on average student performance made teachers coordinate their efforts to help high-status students and turn away from low-status students. Laboratory experiments with future teachers as subjects showed that a performance-based pay made teachers decrease efforts to help low-caste Hindu students compared to upper-caste Hindu or Muslim students. But one observed greater effort and lower intra-class variation in a remedial incentive design where teachers were penalised if students received zero scores.
The above is a necessarily incomplete review of experimental economics literature in the Indian context. Over the past few years, experimental economics has gained increased visibility in organised research activity in India. The first conference on experiments was held at the Centre for Experiments in Social and Behavioural Sciences, Jadavpur University in December 2008. This was followed by a conference on experimental social sciences at the Centre for Computational Social Sciences, University of Mumbai in December 2009. A third conference was held on 27-28 December 2010 at the Centre for Experiments in Social and Behavioural Sciences, Jadavpur University. Courses in experimental economics are also being taught in a few but important teaching centres such as the Department of Economics, Jadavpur University and the Department of Economics, University of Mumbai. The future for the subject in India seems bright despite its delayed emergence.
Notes pays the amount bid but receives nothing, and Gigerenzer and Brighton (2009) have shown us
(5) no conversation or collusion is permitted that very often fast and frugal computations give
1 A great deal of this section and the subsequent sections of this chapter rely on material from
among the participants. us much more predictive accuracy (not in terms of Smith (1991). 4 It is, of course, possible to come up with many mean prediction but with respect to individual naturally occurring markets whose organisation prediction) than models that compute over the
2 Experimental economists are often surprised to learn that they have been using some version of
may be better approximated by Chamberlin’s open entire set of variables. the written instructions devised by Siegel for their outcry procedures. 7 The expected utility form for a lottery (x;p) takes own experiments. A perusal of the words used by 5 In neoclassical economics, a strictly rational indi-the form E[U(x)] = p.U(x), where U(.) is concave,
Siegel (see the instructions appendix to Fouraker vidual is one who can assign a probability distri-continuous and differentiable, and p is a probability and Siegel 1963) is often useful. bution over all possible outcomes in a problem density. The linear, additive nature of this func3 The instructor offers to auction off a dollar bill in
and then choose the one that maximises his ob-tional form makes it easy to use for empirical work. the class with five rules: (1) bidding starts at jective function. 8 See Harrison (1989, 1992, 1994) for a pay-off 5 cents, (2) bidding increases in steps of 5 cents, 6 The idea of heuristics as a second-best approach, dominance critique of experiments in economics.
(3) the highest bidder gets the dollar bill and originating because of mental limitations, has 9 The three main principles that should govern paypays the amount bid, (4) the second highest bidder been recently questioned. Several studies such as ments in an economic experiment are salience,
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
dominance and monotonicity. Salience requires that the payment given to a subject must be different for different outcomes in the game/decision theoretic situation. Dominance requires that the reward medium dominate decision costs for the subjects and monotonicity implies more of the reward medium is preferred to less of the reward medium. See Friedman and Sunder (1994), Harrison (1989, 1992, 1994), Plott (1991) and Smith (1989) for a more detailed exposition on monetary incentives in economic experiments.
10 For studies where the pay-offs are non-monetisable, see Ariely and Loewenstein (2005), Ariely, Loewenstein and Prelec (2003) and Berns et al (2007).
11 The evolutionary biologist Dawkins (1989) also expresses some reluctance at accepting this “as if” approach to decision-making when he states that in problems that involve spatial computation like a baseball player running to catch a ball “he behaves as if he had solved a set of equations in predicting the trajectory of the ball … at some subconscious level, something functionally equivalent to the mathematical calculations is going on.”
12 The idea that motivations beyond the simple calculus of self-aggrandisement could drive human behaviour was noted more abstractly by Hume (1969) and extended by Smith (1759) in his Theory of Moral Sentiments. Adam Smith may have been the first economist (or as they were then known, moral philosopher) to attribute psychological motivations to economic activity such as other regarding preferences and bounded rationality.
13 This approach includes the EUT (von Neumann and Morgenstern 1944) and the Subjective Expected Utility (Savage 1954).
14 These “mistakes” are far from thoughtless acts committed by people of low intelligence. They are behavioural patterns that are displayed by people of various intelligence levels and are largely indicative of preferences. Accordingly, an individual committing a “mistake” continues to deviate repeatedly from the expected behavioural norm. She or he may even suffer monetary pay-off consequences as a result of her or his choices, but her or his preferences may be diffuse enough that other rewards (some potentially non-monetisable) outweigh the observed suboptimality as measured from any one chosen behavioural norm.
15 Camerer (1995) uses an interesting example to illustrate local and global confidence. Most academics tend to be overconfident about the chances of their current research getting into a respectable journal (local overconfidence), but are much more realistic about the chances of their next 10 articles, displaying less global overconfidence.
16 Specifically the subjects were given base rates P(+PSA) = 0.05, the probability that a male in his 50s screened for the first time tests positive and P(+C)= .025, the single-point-in-time probability of prostate cancer in the same population, and asked to estimate the posteriors P(+PSA/+C), that is, the test’s sensitivity and P(+C /+PSA), the Bayesian posterior and checked by how much the ratio P(+PSA/+C) / P(+C /+PSA) deviated from 2.
17 We feel that the empirical/computational bent of psychology-based research on decision-making has made it less than attractive to mainstream economists. In decision research in psychology, benchmarks of comparison are diffuse and contextual. This often makes analyses and conclusions harder to adhere to the realm of positive economics where observed behaviour can be compared against some universal benchmark and the difference explained using a modification of the proposed underlying model. However, over the years, “anomalies” emerged, which could not be explained by trivially tweaking the standard neoclassical model. The ensuing quest to look for alternative explanations outside the field has over time strengthened the appeal of behavioural economics. Over the last decade, the role of other areas in social science, including psychology and evolutionary biology, in
74
explaining human behaviour within the framework of economics has increased.
18 The independence axiom of the EUT states that if a lottery is L1L2, then a mixture of L1 and a third lottery L3 should be similarly preferred to a mixture of L2 and L3; that is,- tL1 + (1-t)L3 tL2 + (1-t) L3, t [0,1].
19 A second theory entitled the rank dependent expected utility model by Quiggin (1982) also explained the Allais paradox by overweighting unlikely extreme events rather than all low probability events. Rank dependent weightings were incorporated into the Cumulative Prospect Theory by Kahneman and Tversky (1992).
20 For example, Choquet (1955) essentially assumes that when a probability mass cannot be assigned with certainty across the available set of alternatives, it is assigned directly to the worst possible alternative.
21 Binswanger’s (1980) experiment would be referred to as an artifactual field experiment, in which the design is almost identical to a conventional lab experiment but with a non-standard (non-student) subject pool. For definitions and a detailed survey of field experiments, see Harrison and List (2004).
22 The OLS risk elicitation device was developed by Binswanger (1980, 1981) in an early attempt to calibrate risk attitudes using experimental procedures and real pay-offs. Each subject is presented with a choice of eight lotteries, shown in each row of panel B of Table 1, and asked to pick one. Alternative O is the safe option, offering a certain amount. All other alternatives increase the average actuarial pay-off but with increasing variance around that pay-off. For a detailed analysis of the pros and cons of different risk elicitation techniques, see Harrison and Rutstrom (2007).
23 Terminal wealth in a lottery choice situation would have decisions made over the final wealth computed by integrating the prizes of the lottery (probabilistic income) with the decision-maker’s initial level of wealth. The EU of income computes the EU only over the changes in this terminal wealth, which correspond to the prizes in the gamble.
24 The basic idea is to endow the subject with a series of lotteries, and to ask for the “selling price” (or more technically the certainty equivalent) of the lottery. The subject is then told that a “buying price” will be picked at random and that if it exceeds the stated selling price, the lottery will be sold at that price and the subject will receive that buying price. If the buying price equals or is lower than the selling price, the subject keeps the lottery and plays it. In structure this is similar to the Vickrey (1961) or second price auction (without any strategic motivations). In their important paper Karni and Safra (1987) show that the BDM is not incentive compatible when the object being valued is a lottery. Moreover, according to Horowitz (2006), the BDM may not always be incentive compatible because even in situations when the object being valued is not a lottery, an individual’s selling price may depend on the distribution of potential prices unless a very specific assumption (summarise an agent’s preference by their certainty equivalent) is made.
25 Chakravarty et al (2010a) use this multiple price list to investigate the case that lies between the real and hypothetical pay-offs in Holt and Laury (2002); that is, prizes are real but accrue not to the decisionmaker but to a third party who passively collects this payout. Individuals are seen to be more risk neutral when they make decisions on behalf of a third party vis-à-vis when they make decisions where the pay-offs accrue to themselves.
26 For example, if we have two competing models for behaviour, say the EUT and the Prospect Theory, we first compute the conditional likelihoods for these two models. We then aggregate these conditional likelihoods (using probability weights) to form the grand likelihood function which we estimate.
27 According to Harrison and List (2004), a natural field experiment is one in which the environment is where the subjects naturally undertake the tasks that they perform and where the subjects do not know that they are in an experiment.
August 27, 2011
28 The ESA is the largest body of experimental economists in the world today.
29 They speculate that senior economists are less price sensitive than junior economists due to higher income, research grants, and the like. Also, senior economists are more experienced in decision-making in this context and thus are less prone to decision-making anomalies (List 2003).
30 An ultimatum game, first studied experimentally by Güth et al (1982), is one where a proposer sends an offer to a responder splitting a rupee in a proportion that is acceptable to him. If the responder agrees to the split (say 60p-40p) then these are the final allocations. If the responder does not agree to the split, both get zero. The Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium (SPNE) of this game is for the proposer to keep the full rupee and offer the responder nothing. The responder in equilibrium should accept this offer. Empirically, however, this SPNE is rarely played – proposers are mostly equity preserving in their offers and responders often reject moderately non-egalitarian offers.
31 Weird stands for western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic.
32 Many neuroscientists believe there is a specialised “mentalising” (or “theory of mind”) module that controls a person’s inferences about what other people believe, feel, or might do. This is of particular interest to economists.
33 Natural experiments are conducted in a natural setting; that is, on their own, without intervention from the investigators. All that the experimenters do is to build in one additional stimulus in the naturally occurring phenomenon. The point is to study the effect of this additional stimulus on the outcome of the experiment.
34 A scale that allows the identification of types of subjects, who vary in cooperativeness. 35 Russell Hardin argues that risk taking is a better term than trust for the money sent by the sender.
References
Adam, K (2007): “Experimental Evidence on the Persistence of Output and Inflation”, Economic Journal, 117, pp 603-36.
Allais Blume, Maurice (1952): A la Recherche d’une Discipline Economique, 2nd edition (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale).
Andersen, Steffen, Erwin Bulte, Uri Gneezy and John List (2008): “Do Women Supply More Public Goods than Men? Preliminary Experimental Evidence from Matrilineal and Patriarchal Societies”, American Economic Review, 98 (2), pp 376-81.
Andreoni, James (1988): “Why Free Ride?: Strategies and Learning in Public Goods Experiments”, Journal of Public Economics, 37, pp 291-304.
Andreoni, James and J H Miller (2002): “Giving According to Garp: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism”, Econometrica, 70 (2), pp 737-53.
vol xlvi no 35
SURVEY OF EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS
Andreoni, James and Abigail Payne (2003): “Do Government Grants to Private Charities Crowd Out Giving or Fund-Raising?”, American Economic Review, 93 (3), pp 792-812.
Ariely, Dan (2008): Predictably Irrational (New York: HarperCollins).
Ariely, Dan, George Loewenstein and D Prelec (2003): “Coherent Arbitrariness: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, pp 73-105.
Ariely, Dan and George Loewenstein (2005): “The Heat of the Moment: The Effect of Sexual Arousal on Sexual Decision Making”, Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 18 (1), pp 1-12.
Ariely, Dan and M I Norton (2007): “Psychology and Experimental Economics: A Gap in Abstraction”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 (6), pp 336-39.
Arrow, Kenneth (1974): The Limits of Organisation (New York: Norton).
Auten, G, H Sieg and C T Clotfelter (2002): “Charitable Giving, Income, and Taxes: An Analysis of Panel Data”, American Economic Review, 92, pp 371-82.
Bagnoli, M and B L Lipman (1989): “Provision of Public Goods: Fully Implementing the Core through Private Contributions”, Review of Economic Studies, 56, pp 583-601.
Bagnoli, M and M McKee (1991): “Voluntary Contribution Games: Efficient Private Provision of Public Goods”, Economic Inquiry, 29, pp 351-66.
Ballinger, T P, M G Palumbo and N T Wilcox (2003): “Precautionary Savings and Social Learning across Generations: An Experiment”, Economic Journal, 113, pp 920-47.
Banerjee, A, S Cole, S Duflo and L Linden (2007): “Remedying Education: Evidence from Two Randomised Experiments in India”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (3), pp 1235-64.
Bansal, Sangeeta, Sujoy Chakravarty and Bharat Ramaswami (2010): “Weak Aversion to GM Foods: Experimental Evidence from India”, Discussion Paper 1002, Centre for International Trade and Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Barr, Abigail (2003): “Trust and Expected Trustworthiness: Experimental Evidence from Zimbabwean Villages”, The Economic Journal, 113 (489), pp 614-30.
Bardsley, Nicholas, Robin Cubitt, Graham Loomes, Peter Moffatt, Chris Starmer and Robert Sugden (2010): Experimental Economics (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Baviskar, A (1994): “Fate of the Forest: Conservation Tribal Rights”, Economic Political Weekly, 29 (39), pp 2493-501.
Becker, G M, M H Degroot and J Marschak (1964): “Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method”, Behavioural Science, 9 (3), pp 226-32.
Becker, G S (1974): “A Theory of Social Interactions”, Journal of Political Economy, 82 (6), pp 1063-93.
Becker, Selwyn W and Fred O Brownson (1964): “What Price Ambiguity? On the Role of Ambiguity in Decision-Making”, Journal of Political Economy, 72, pp 65-73.
Benartzi, Shlomo and Richard H Thaler (1995): “Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (1), pp 73-92.
Berg, Joyce, John Dickhaut and Kevin A McCabe (1995): “Trust, Reciprocity and Social History”, Games and Economic Behaviour, 10 (1), pp 122-42.
Berg, N, G Biele and G Gigerenzer (2007): “Consistency versus Accuracy of Beliefs: Economists Surveyed about PSA”, Working Paper, University of Texas, Dallas.
Bernasconi, M, O Kirchkamp and P Paruolo (2006): “Do Fiscal Variables Aơect Fiscal Expectations? Experiments with Real World and Lab Data”, SPF 504 Discussion Paper No 04-26, Universität Mannheim.
Berns, G S, C Monica Capra, Sara Moore and Charles Noussair (2007): “A Shocking Experiment: New Evidence on Probability Weighting and Common
Economic Political Weekly August 27, 2011
EPWRatio Violations”, Judgment and Decision Making, Vol 2, No 4, pp 234-42.
Bertrand, Marianne, Djankov Simeon, Rema Hanna and Mullainathan Sendhil (2007): “Obtaining a Driver’s License in India: An Experimental Approach to Studying Corruption”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (4), pp 1639-76.
Binswanger, Hans P (1980): “Attitudes Toward Risk, Experimental Measurement in Rural India”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62, August, pp 395-407.
– (1981): “Attitude Toward Risk, Theoretical Implications of an Experiment in Rural India”, Economic Journal, 91, December, pp 867-90.
Bochet, O, T Page and L Putterman (2006): “Communication and Punishment in Voluntary Contribution Experiments”, Journal of Economic Behaviour Organisation, 60 (1), pp 11-26.
Bourdieu, P (1983): “Forms of Capital” in J C Richards (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York: Greenwood Press).
Bowles, S (2005): Microeconomics – Behaviour, Institution and Evolution (India: Oxford University Press).
Brosig, J, A Ockenfels and J Weimann (2003): “The Effect of Communication Media on Cooperation”, German Economic Review, 4, pp 217-42.
Caldwell, Michael (1976): “Communication and Sex Effects in a Five-Person Prisoners’ Dilemma Game”, Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 33(3): pp 273-80.
Camerer, Colin (1995): “Individual Decision Making” in J H Kagel and A E Roth (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
– (2000): “Prospect Theory in the Wild” in D Kahneman and A Tversky (ed.), Choices, Values and Frames (Cambridge: Russell Sage Foundation and Cambridge University Press).
Camerer, Colin, G Loewenstein and D Prelec (2005): “Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience can Inform Economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, 43, pp 5-60.
Capra, Monica C, Tomomi Tanaka, Colin Camerer, Lauren Munyan, Veronica Sovero, Lisa Wang and Charles Noussair (2005): “The Impact of Simple Institutions in Experimental Economies with Poverty Traps”, Emory Economics, 05-08 (Atlanta: Emory University).
Carbone, E and J D Hey (2004): “The Eơect of Unemployment on Consumption: An Experimental Analysis”, Economic Journal, 114, pp 660-83.
Cardenas, Juan Camilo and Elinor Ostrom (2004): “What Do People Bring into the Game? Experiments in the Field about Cooperation in the Commons”, Agricultural Systems, 82 (3), pp 307-26.
Cardenas, Juan Camilo and J P Carpenter (2005): “Experiments and Economic Development: Lessons from Field Labs in the Developing World”, Middlebury College Working Paper Series 05-05, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont.
Carlsson, F, Gautam Gupta and Olof Johansson-Stenman (2003): “Choosing from Behind a Veil of Ignorance in India”, Applied Economics Letters, 10 (13), pp 825-27.
– (2009): “Keeping up with the Vaishyas? Caste and Relative Standing in India”, Oxford Economic Papers, 61 (1), pp 52-73.
Cass, David (1965): “Optimum Growth in an Aggregative Model of Capital Accumulation”, Review of Economic Studies, 32 (91), pp 233-40.
Chakravarty, Sujoy and Jaideep Roy (2009): “Recursive Expected Utility and the Separation of Attitudes towards Risk and Ambiguity: An Experimental Study”, Theory and Decision, 66 (3), pp 199-228.
Chakravarty, Sujoy, Carine Sebi, E Somanathan and Emmanuel Theophilus (2010a): “The Demographics of Cooperation: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Gori-Ganga Basin”, Planning Unit Discussion Paper 10-07, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
vol xlvi no 35
Chakravarty, Sujoy, G W Harrison, Ernan Haruvy and E E Rutstrom (2010b): “Are You Risk Averse over Other People’s Money?”, Forthcoming, Southern Economic Journal.
Chakravarty, Sujoy, Emmanuel Dechenaux and Jaideep Roy (2010c): “Ill-Defined versus Precise Pre-Play Communication in the Traveler’s Dilemma”, Southern Economic Journal, 77 (2), pp 351-68.
Chamberlin, Edward (1948): “An Experimental Imperfect Market”, Journal of Political Economy, 56, pp 95-108.
Charness, G and M Rabin (2002): “Social Preferences: Some Simple Tests and a New Model”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117 (3), pp 817-69.
Chattopadhyay, Raghabendra and Esther Duflo (2004): “Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India”, Econometrica, 72 (5), pp 1409-43.
Clotfelter, C T (1985): Federal Tax Policy and Charitable Giving (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Choquet, Gustave (1955): “Theory of Capacities”, Annales de l’Institut Fourier 5, Grenoble, pp 131-295.
Coleman, J S (1988): “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital”, American Journal of Sociology, 94, pp 95-120.
– (1990): The Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).
Cox, J C and V Sadiraj (2006): “Small- and Large-Stakes Risk Aversion: Implications of Concavity Calibration for Decision Theory”, Games and Economic Behaviour, 56 (1), pp 45-60.
Dalton, Robert W and Shyam Sunder (1992): “Efficiency and Price Convergence in Open Outcry Double Auctions” (Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University).
Dasgupta, Partha (2005): “The Economics of Social Capital”, Economic Record, 81 (Supplement 1), pp S1-S21.
Davidson, D, P Suppes and S Siegel (1957): Decision Making: An Experimental Approach (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Dawes, Robyn M, Janne McTavish and Harriet Shaklee (1977): “Behaviour, Communication, and Assumptions About Other People’s Behaviour in a Commons Dilemma Situation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (1), pp 1-11.
Dawkins, Richard (1989): The Selfish Gene, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Deci, Edward L, Richard Koestner and Richard M Ryan (1999): “A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation”, Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), pp 627-68.
De Cremer, David and Mark Van Vugt (1999): “Social Identification Effects in Social Dilemmas: A Transformation of Motives”, European Journal of Social Psychology, 29 (7), pp 871-93.
Deutsch, Morton (1960): “The Effect of Motivational Orientation upon Trust and Suspicion”, Human Relations, 13 (2), pp 123-39.
Diamond, D W and P Dybvig (1983): “Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance and Liquidity”, Journal of Political Economy, 91, pp 401-19.
D’Silva, E and B Nagnath (2002): “Behroonguda: A Rare Success Story in Joint Forest Management”, Economic Political Weekly, 37 (6), pp 551-58.
Duffy, John (2008): “Macroeconomics: A Survey of Laboratory Research”, Working Papers 334, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
Duffy, John and Jack Ochs (1999): “Emergence of Money as a Medium of Exchange: An Experi mental Study”, American Economic Review, 89 (4), pp 847-77.
– (2002): “Intrinsically Worthless Objects as Media of Exchange: Experimental Evidence”, International Economic Review, 43, pp 637-73.
Durlauf, Steven N and Lawrence E Blume (2009): Economic Growth (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan).
Eckel, Catherine C and Philip J Grossman (2003): “Rebate versus Matching: Does How We Subsidise Charitable Giving Matter?”, Journal of Public Economics, 87 (3-4), pp 681-701.
– (2005): “Subsidising Charitable Contributions: A Field Test Comparing Matching and Rebate Subsidies”, Mimeo, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia.
Edwards, W (1961): “Behavioural Decision Theory”, Annual Review of Psychology, 12, pp 473-98.
Edwards, Ward (1968): “Conservatism in Human Information Processing” in Benjamin Kleinmuntz (ed.), Formal Representation of Human Judgment (New York: Wiley).
Einhorn, Hillel J and Robin M Hogarth (1986): “Decision Making Under Ambiguity”, Journal of Business, 59 (4, Part 2), pp S225-S50.
Ellsberg, Daniel (1961): “Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75 (4), pp 643-69.
Falk, A and U Fischbacher (2006): “A Theory of Reciprocity”, Games and Economic Behaviour, 54 (2), pp 293-315.
Farrel, J and M Rabin (1996): “Cheap Talk”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10 (3), pp 103-18.
Fehr, Ernst and Klaus M Schmidt (1999): “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (3), pp 817-68.
Fehr, Ernst and Simon Gaechter (2000): “Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments”, American Economic Review, 90 (4), pp 980-94.
– (2002): “Altruistic Punishment in Humans”, Nature, 415, pp 137-40.
Ferraro, P J and C A Vossler (2010): “The Source and Significance of Confusion in Public Goods Experiments”, BE Journal of Economic Analysis Policy, 10 (1), pp 1-40.
Fiorina, Morris P and Charles R Plott (1978): “Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study”, American Political Science Review, 72, pp 575-98.
Fischbacher, Urs, Simon Gaechter and Ernst Fehr (2001): “Are People Conditionally Cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment”, Economics Letters, 71 (3), pp 397-404.
Fishburn, Peter C (1993): “The Axioms and Algebra of Ambiguity”, Theory and Decisions, 34, pp 119-37.
Forsythe, Robert, Thomas R Palfrey and Charles R Plott (1982): “Asset Valuation in an Experimental Market”, Econometrica, 50 (3), pp 537-68.
Fouraker, Lawrence E, Martin Shubik and Sidney Siegel (1961): “Oligopoly Bargaining: The Quantity Adjuster Models”, Research Bulletin 20, Department of Psychology (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University).
Fouraker, Lawrence E, Sidney Siegel and Donald Harnett (1961): Bargaining Behaviour I, Department of Psychology (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University).
Fouraker, Lawrence E and Sidney Siegel (1961): Bargaining Behaviour II, Department of Psychology (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University).
– (1963): Bargaining Behaviour (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Fox, Craig R and Amos Tversky (1995): “Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (3), pp 585-603.
Frey, Bruno S and Stephan Meier (2004): “Social Comparisons and Pro-Social Behaviour: Testing Conditional Cooperation in a Field Experiment”, American Economic Review, 94 (5), pp 1717-22.
Friedman, Daniel, Glenn Harrison and J Salmon (1983): “Informational Role of Futures Markets and Learning Behaviour-Some Experimental Evidence” in M E Streit (ed.), Futures Markets-Modelling, Managing and Monitoring Futures Trading (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Friedman, Daniel and Shyam Sunder (1994): Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economists (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Friedman, James (1967): “An Experimental Study of Cooperative Duopoly”, Econometrica, 35, pp 379-97.
Friedman, James and Austin Hoggatt (1980): “An Experiment in Noncooperative Oligopoly”, Experimental Economics, Supplement 1 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press).
Friedman, Milton (1962): Price Theory: A Provisional Text (Chicago: Aldine Publishing).
Fukuyama, Francis (1995): Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Gaechter, Simon, Henrik Orzen, Elke Renner and Chris Starmer (2009): “Are Experimental Economists Prone to Framing Effects? A Natural Field Experiment”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 70 (3), pp 443-46.
Garratt, R and T Keister (2005): “Bank Runs: An Experimental Study”, Working Paper (Santa Barbara: University of California).
Gigerenzer, Gerd and Daniel G Goldstein (1996): “Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality”, Psychological Review, 103 (4), pp 650-69.
Gigerenzer, Gerd and R Selten, ed. (2001): Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox (Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: MIT Press).
Gigerenzer, Gerd and H Brighton (2009): “Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences”, Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, pp 107-43.
Glaeser, Edward L, David Laibson, Jose A Scheinkman and Christine L Soutter (2000): “Measuring Trust”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3), pp 811-46.
Gode, Dhananjay K and Shyam Sunder (1993): “Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality”, The Journal of Political Economy, 101 (1), pp 119-37.
Granberg, Donald, J Scott Stevens and Sandra Katz (1975): “Effect of Communication on Cooperation in Expanded Prisoner’s Dilemma and Chicken Games”, Simulation and Games, 6 (2), pp 166-87.
Grether, David M and Charles R Plott (1979): “Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon”, American Economic Review, 69 (4), pp 623-38.
Grether, D (1991): “Testing Bayes Rule and the Representativeness Heuristic: Some Experimental Results”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 17, pp 31-57.
Grief, A (1994): “Cultural Beliefs and the Organisation of Society: A Historical and Theoretical Reflection on Collectivist And Individual societies”, Journal of Political Economy, 102 (5), pp 912-50.
Grossman, S and J Stiglitz (1980): “On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets”, American Economic Review, 70, pp 393-408.
Güth, Werner, R Schmittberger and B Schwarz (1982): “An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 3 (4), pp 367-88.
Halevy, Y (2007): “Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study”, Econometrica, 75 (2), pp 503-36.
Harrison, G W (2008): “Neuroeconomics: A Critical Consideration”, Economics and Philosophy, 24 (Special Issue 3), pp 303-44.
Harrison, Glenn W (1989): “Theory and Misbehaviour of First Price Auctions”, American Economic Review, 79 (4), pp 749-62.
Harrison, Glenn W and E Elisabet Rutstrom (2001): “Doing It Both Ways-Experimental Practice and Heuristic Context”, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 24 (3), pp 413-19.
Harrison, Glenn W, Morten Igel Lau and Melonie B Williams (2002): “Estimating Individual Discount
August 27, 2011
Rates in Denmark: A Field Experiment”, American Economic Review, 92 (5), pp 1606-17.
Harrison, Glenn W and John A List (2004): “Field Experiments”, Journal of Economic Literature, 42 (4), pp 1009-55.
Harrison, Glenn W, Eric Johnson, Melayne M McInnes and E Elisabet Rutstrom (2005): “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: Comment”, American Economic Review, 95 (3), pp 897-901.
Harrison, Glenn W, M I Lau, E Elisabet Rutstrom (2009): “Risk Attitudes, Randomisation to Treatment, and Self-Selection into Experiments”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 70, pp 498-507.
Harrison, Glenn W, Steven Humphrey and Arjan Verschoor (2010): “Choice under Uncertainty in Developing Countries”, Economic Journal, 120, pp 80-104.
Henrich, J, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles, Colin Camerer, Herbert Gintis, Richard McElreath and Ernst Fehr (2001): “In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioural Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies”, American Economic Review, 91 (2), pp 73-78.
Henrich, J, S J Heine and A Norenzayan (2010): “The Weirdest People in the World?”, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 33, pp 61-135.
Hey, John D (1994): “Expectations Formation: Rational or Adaptive or ...?”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 25, pp 329-44.
Hey, John D and Chris Orme (1994): “Investigating Generalisations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data”, Econometrica, 62 (6), pp 1291-1326.
Hey, John D and V Dardanoni (1988): “Optimal Consumption Under Uncertainty: An Experimental Investigation”, Economic Journal, 98, pp 105-16.
Hirota, Shinichi and Shyam Sunder (2007): “Price Bubbles sans Dividend Anchors: Evidence from Laboratory Stock Markets”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31, No 6, pp 1875-1909.
Hirshleifer, David and Eric Rasmusen (1989): “Cooperation in a Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma with Ostracism”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 12 (1), pp 87-106.
Hoff, Karla and Priyanka Pandey (2006): “Discrimination, Social Identity and Durable Inequalities”, American Economic Review, 96 (2), pp 206-11.
Hogarth, Robin M and Howard C Kunreuther (1985): “Ambiguity and Insurance Decisions”, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 75 (2), pp 386-90.
Holt, Charles A (1986): “Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom”, American Economic Review, 76 (3), pp 508-15.
Holt, Charles A and Susan K Laury (2002): “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects”, American Economic Review, 92 (5), pp 1644-55.
Hommes, C H, J Sonnemans, J Tuinstra and H van de Velden (2007): “Learning in Cobweb Experiments”, Macroeconomic Dynamics, 11 (Supplement 1), pp 8-33.
Horowitz, J K (2006): “The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak Mechanism is not Necessarily Incentive Compatible, Even for Non-Random Goods”, Economics Letters, 93, pp 6-11.
Houser, D and R Kurzban (2002): “Revisiting Kindness and Confusion in Public Goods Experiments”, American Economic Review, 92 (4), pp 1062-69.
Hume, D (1969): A Treatise of Human Nature, New edition, First edition 1739, Penguin, London.
Hungerman, D M (2005): “Are Church and State Substitutes? Evidence from the 1996 Welfare Reform”, Journal of Public Economics, 89 (11-12), pp 2245-67.
Isaac, R M, J Walker and S Thomas (1984): “Divergent Evidence on Free Riding: An Experimental Examination of Possible Explanations”, Public Choice, 43 (1), pp 113-49.
Isaac, R M, K McCue and C Plott (1985): “Public Goods Provision in an Experimental Environment”, Journal of Economics, 26, pp 51-74.
vol xlvi no 35
SURVEY OF EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS
Isaac, R M and J Walker (1988): “Communication and Free-Riding Behaviour: The Voluntary Contribution Mechanism”, Economic Inquiry, 26, pp 585-608.
Kachelmeier, S J and M Shehata (1992): “Examining Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People’s Republic of China”, American Economic Review, 82 (5), pp 1120-41.
Kagel, John H and Alvin E Roth, ed. (1995): Handbook of Experimental Economics (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1979): “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions under Risk”, Econometrica, 47 (2), pp 313-27.
Kahneman, Daniel, J L Knetsch and R H Thaler (1991): “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), pp 193-206.
Karlan, Dean and John A List (2007): “Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment”, American Economic Review, 97 (5), pp 1774-93.
Karni, E and Z Safra (1987): “‘Preference Reversal’ and the Observability of Preferences by Experimental Methods”, Econometrica, 55 (3), pp 675-85.
Kelley, H and D Friedman (2002): “Learning to Forecast Price”, Economic Inquiry, 40, pp 556-73.
Keynes, John Maynard (1936): The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Harcourt, Brace and Co, New York.
Kim, Oliver and Mark Walker (1984): “The Free Rider Problem: Experimental Evidence”, Public Choice, 43 (1), pp 3-24.
Kingma, B R (1989): “An Accurate Measurement of the Crowd-Out Effect, Income Effect, and Price Effect for Charitable Contributions”, Journal of Political Economy, 97, pp 1197-1207.
Klibanoff, Peter, Massimo Marinacci and Sujoy Mukerji (2005): “A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity”, Econometrica, 73 (6), 1849-92.
Kluger, Brian D and Steve B Wyatt (1990): “Options and Efficiency: Some Experimental Evidence”, Working Paper (Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati).
Knight, Frank H (1921): Risk Uncertainty and Profit (Boston: Houghton and Mifflin).
Komorita Samuel S, J A Hilty and Craig D Parks (1991): “Reciprocity and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35 (3), pp 494-518.
Koopmans, Tjalling C (1965): “On the Concept of Optimal Economic Growth”, The Econometric Approach to Development Planning (North-Holland, Amsterdam: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum), pp 225-87.
Kuhlman, John, Curt R Camac and Denise A Cunha (1986): “Individual Difference in Social Orientation” in Henk A M Wilke, David M Messick and Christel G Rutte (ed.), Experimental Social Dilemmas (Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang).
Kurzban, R and D Houser (2001): “Individual Differences and Cooperation in a Circular Public Goods Game”, European Journal of Personality, 15, pp S37-S52.
Langer, Ellen (1975): “The Illusion of Control”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, pp 311-28.
Ledyard, John O (1995): “Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research” in J H Kagel and A E Roth (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics (Princeton: Princeton University Press), pp 111-94.
Lei, Vivian and Charles N Noussair (2002): “An Experimental Test of an Optimal Growth Model”, American Economic Review, 92 (3), pp 549-70.
– (2007): “Equilibrium Selection in an Experimental Macroeconomy”, Southern Economic Journal, 74, pp 448-82.
Lei, Vivian, Charles N Noussair and Charles R Plott (2001): “Non-Speculative Bubbles in Experimental
Economic Political Weekly August 27, 2011
EPWAsset Markets: Lack of Common Knowledge of Rationality vs Actual Irrationality”, Econometrica, 69 (4), pp 831-59.
Levi, Margaret and Laura Stocker (2000): “Political Trust and Trustworthiness”, Annual Review of Political Science, 3, pp 475-507.
Levin, I P, S L Schneider and G J Gaeth (1998): “All Frames Are not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects”, Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 76, pp 149-88.
Lichtenstein, Sarah and Paul Slovic (1971): “Reversals of Preference between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, pp 46-55.
– (1973): “Response-Induced Reversals of Preference in Gambling: An Extended Replication in Las Vegas”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, pp 16-20.
Lichtenstein, Sarah, Baruch Fischoff and Lawrence D Phillips (1982): “Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art to 1980” in Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic and Amos Tversky (ed.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp 306-34.
List, John A (2003): “Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (1), pp 41-71.
List, John A and David Lucking-Reiley (2002): “The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign”, Journal of Political Economy, 110, pp 215-33.
Loewenstein, George (1988): “Frames of Mind in Intertemporal Choice”, Management Science, 34 (2), pp 200-14.
Loewenstein, George and D Prelec (1992): “Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (2), pp 573-97.
Loomes, Graham (1990): “Preference Reversal: Explanations, Evidence and Implications”, Annals of Operations Research, 23, pp 65-90.
Loomes, Graham, P G Moffatt and R Sugden (2002): “A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24, pp 103-30.
Luhmann, Niklas (1988): “Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives” in Diego Gambetta (ed.), Trust (Oxford: Blackwell).
MacCrimmon, Kenneth R (1965): “An Experimental Study of the Decision Making Behaviour of Business Executives”, Unpublished dissertation (Los Angeles: University of California).
MacCrimmon, Kenneth R and Stig Larsson (1979): “Utility Theory: Axioms versus Paradoxes” in M Allais and O Hagen (ed.), The Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox (Dordrecht: D Reidel), pp 333-409.
Marimon, Ramon and Shyam Sunder (1993): “Indeterminacy of Equilibria in a Hyperinflationary World: Experimental Evidence”, Econometrica, 61 (5), pp 1073-107.
Marshall, Alfred (1890): Principles of Economics, First edition, Macmillan, London.
Marwell, G and R E Ames (1979): “Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods I: Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the Free Rider Problem”, American Journal of Sociology, 84, pp 1335-60.
McCabe, Kevin, Daniel Houser, Lee Ryan, Vernon Smith and Theodore Trouard (2001): “A Functional Imaging Study of Cooperation in Two-Person Reciprocal Exchange”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98 (20), pp 11832-35.
McClintock, Charles G (1972): “Social Motivation: A Set of Propositions”, Behavioural Sciences, 17 (5), pp 438-54.
Meier, Stephan (2005): ‘‘Do Subsidies Increase Charitable Giving in the Long Run? Matching Donations in a Field Experiment’’, Mimeo, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.
vol xlvi no 35
Mitra, Santanu and Gautam Gupta (2009): “The Logic of Community Participation: Experimental Evidence from West Bengal”, Economic Political Weekly, 44 (20), pp 51-57.
Mori, Kumiko (1996): “Effects of Trust and Communication on Cooperative Choice in a Two-Person Prisoner’s Dilemma Game”, Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35 (3), pp 324-36.
Mosse, David (2003): The Rule of Water, Statecraft, Ecology and Collective Action in South India (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Mosteller, F and Philip Nogee (1951): “An Experimental Measurement of Utility”, Journal of Political Economy, 59, pp 371-404.
Nagel, R (1995): “Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study”, American Economic Review, 85, pp 1313-26.
Nagel, Thomas (1970): The Possibility of Altruism (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Narayan, Tulika and Tarun Jain (2010): “Incentive to Discriminate? An Experimental Investigation of Teacher Incentives in India”, available at the Social Science Research Network website, http://ssrn. com/abstract=1435818.
North, D (1990): Institutions, Institution Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Noussair, Charles N and K J Matheny (2000): “An Experimental Study of Decisions in Dynamic Optimisation Problems”, Economic Theory, 15, pp 389-419.
Okten, Cagla and Weisbrod A Burton (2000): “Determinants of Donations In Private Nonprofit Markets”, Journal of Public Economics, 75, pp 255-72.
Orbell, John M, Peregrine Schwarz-Shea and Randy T Simmons (1984): “Do Cooperators Exit More Readily Than Defectors”, American Political Science, 78 (1), pp 147-62.
Orbell, John M and Robyn M Dawes (1993): “Social Welfare, Cooperators’ Advantage and the Option of Not Playing the Game”, American Sociological Review, 58 (6), pp 787-800.
Ostrom, Elinor, James Walker and Roy Gardner (1992): “Covenants with and without a Sword: Self-Governance Is Possible”, American Political Science Review, 86 (2): pp 404-17.
Ostrom, Elinor and James Walker, ed. (2003): “Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research”, Vol VI, Russell Sage Foundation Series on Trust (New York: Russell Sage Foundation).
Palfrey, Thomas R and Jeffrey E Prisbrey (1997): “Anomalous Behavior in Public Goods Experiments: How Much and Why”, American Economic Review, 87 (5), pp 829-46.
Parks, Craig D and Lorne G Hulbert (1995): “High and Low Trusters’ Responses to Fear in a Payoff Matrix”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39 (4), pp 718-30.
Payne, Abigail A (1998): “Does the Government Crowd-Out Private Donations? New Evidence from a Sample of Non-Profit Firms”, Journal of Public Economics, 69 (3), pp 323-45.
Payne, John W, J R Bettman and E L Johnson (1993): The Adaptive Decision Maker (New York: University of Cambridge Press).
Plott, Charles R (1982): “Industrial Organisation Theory and Experimental Economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, 20 (4), pp 1485-1527.
– (1991): “Will Economics Become an Experimental Science?”, Southern Economic Journal, 57 (4), pp 901-19.
Plott, Charles R and Vernon L Smith (1978): “An Experimental Examination of Two Exchange Institutions”, Review of Economic Studies, 45 (1), pp 133-53.
Plott, Charles R and Shyam Sunder (1982): “Efficiency of Controller Security Markets with Insider Information: An Application of Rational Expectation Models”, Journal of Political Economy, 90 (4), pp 663-98.
– (1988): “Rational Expectations and the Aggregation of Diverse Information in Laboratory Security Markets”, Econometrica, 56 (5), pp 1085-1118.
Plott, Charles R and Vernon Smith, ed. (2008): Handbook of Experimental Economics Results (Amsterdam: Elsevier).
Preston, M G and P Baratta (1948): “An Experimental Study of the Auction Value of an Uncertain Outcome”, American Journal of Psychology, 61, pp 183-93.
Putnam, Robert D (1993): Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (New York: Basic Books).
– (2000): Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Quiggin, J (1982): “A Theory of Anticipated Utility”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 3 (4), pp 323-43.
Rabin, Matthew (1993): “Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics”, American Economic Review, 83 (5), pp 1281-1302.
Rabin, Matthew and Richard H Thaler (2001): “Anomalies: Risk Aversion”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (1), pp 219-32.
Ramsey, Frank P (1928): “A Mathematical Theory of Saving”, Economic Journal, 38 (152), pp 543-59.
Randolph, William C (1995): “Dynamic Income, Progressive Taxes, and the Timing of Charitable Contributions”, Journal of Political Economy, 103 (4), pp 709-38.
Roth, A E (1996): “Individual Rationality as a Useful Approximation: Comments on Tversky’s Rational Theory and Constructive Choice” in K Arrow, E Colombatto, M Perlman and C Schmidt (ed.), The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour (London: Macmillan), pp 198-202.
– (1998): “Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria”, American Economic Review, 88 (4), pp 848-81.
Rotter, Julian (1967): “A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust”, Journal of Personality, 35 (4), pp 651-65.
Rubinstein, Ariel (2008): “Comments on Neuroeconomics”, Economics and Philosophy, 24, pp 485-94.
Samuelson, Paul A and William D Nordhaus (1985): Economics, 12th edition, First edition 1948 (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Sato, Kaori (1988): “Trust and Group Size in Social Dilemmas”, Japanese Psychological Research, 30 (2), pp 88-93.
Sauermann, Heinz and Reinhard Selten (1960): “An Experiment in Oligopoly” in L Bertalanffy and A Rapoport (ed.), General Systems Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research, Society for General Systems Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Vol 5.
Sauermann, Heinz, ed. (1972): Contributions to Experimental Economics, Vol 1 (1967), Vol 2 (1970), Vol 3 (1972) (Tubingen: Mohr).
Savage, Leonard J (1954): The Foundations of Statistics (New York: Wiley).
Schmeidler, David (1989): “Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity”, Econometrica, 57, pp 571-87.
Schotter, A and T Yorulmazer (2003): “On the Severity of Bank Runs: An Experimental Study”, Working Paper (New York: New York University).
Segal, U (1988): “Does the Preference Reversal Phenomenon Necessarily Contradict the Independence Axiom?”, American Economic Review, 78, pp 233-36.
Siegel, Sidney (1959): “Theoretical Models of Choice and Strategy Behaviour: Stable State Behaviour in the Two-Choice Uncertain Outcomes Situation”, Psychometrika, 24, pp 303-16.
Siegel, Sidney and L Fouraker (1960): Bargaining and Group Decision Making – Experiments in Bilateral Monopoly (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Simon, Herbert A (1955): “A Behavioural Model of Rational Choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69 (1), pp 99-118.
Sims, Christopher (1996): “Macroeconomics and Titmuss, Richard M (1970): The Gift Relationship Methodology”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, (London: Allen and Unwin). 10 (1), pp 105-20. Tversky, Amos (1967): “Utility Theory and Additivity
Slovic, P and Amos Tversky (1974): “Who Accepts Analysis of Risky Choices”, Journal of ExperiSavage’s Axiom?”, Behavioural Science, 19, mental Psychology, 75, pp 27-36. pp 368-73. – (1972): “The Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of
Smith, Adam (1759): The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Choice”, Psychological Review, 79, pp 281-99. First edition (London: A Millar). Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1971): “Belief
Smith, Kip, John Dickhaut, Kevin McCabe and José in the Law of Small Numbers”, Psychological Pardo (2002): “Neuronal Substrates for Choice Bulletin, 76 (2), pp 105-10. Under Ambiguity, Risk, Certainty, Gains, and – (1981): “The Framing of Decisions and the Psy-Losses”, Management Science, 48, pp 711-18. chology of Choice”, Science, 211, pp 453-58.
Smith, Vernon L (1962): “An Experimental Study of Van Hyuck, J B, J P Cook and R C Battalio (1994): Competitive Market Behaviour”, Journal of Political “Selection Dynamics, Asymptotic Stability, and Economy, 70 (2), pp 111-37. Adaptive Behaviour”, Journal of Political Economy,
von Neumann, John and Oscar Morgenstern (1944): pp 923-55.
The Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour
Wright, Thomas L, Pamela Maggied and Mary L Palmer
Smith, Vernon L, Gerry L Suchanek and Arlington W (1975): “An Unobtrusive Study of Interpersonal Williams (1988): “Bubbles, Crashes and Endog-Trust”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychoenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset logy, 32 (3), pp 446-48. Markets”, Econometrica, 56 (6), pp 1119-52.
Yamagishi, Toshio (1986): The Provision of a Sanc-Sonnemans, Joep (2007): “Distant Relations, A Review tioning System as a Public Good”, Journal of of ‘Social Psychology and Economics’”, Social Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (1), pp 110-16. Justice Research, 20, pp 388-99. – (1988): “Seriousness of Social Dilemmas and the Sosis, Richard and Bradley J Ruffle (2003): “Religious Provision of a Sanctioning System”, Social Psy-Ritual and Cooperation: Testing for a Relation-chology Quarterly, 51 (1), pp 32-42. ship on Israeli Religious and Secular Kibbutzim”, – (1995): “Social Dilemmas” in K S Cook, G Fine, and Current Anthropology, 44 (5), pp 713-22.
J House (ed.), Sociological Perspectives on Social Steinberg, Richard S (1990): “Taxes and Giving: New Psychology (Boston: Allyn and Bacon), pp 311-35. Findings”, Voluntas, 1 (2), pp 61-79.
– (2001): “Trust as a Form of Social Intelligence” in
Sugden, Robert (1982): “On the Economics of Philan- Karen S Cook (ed.), Trust in Society (New York: thropy”, Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Russell Sage Foundation), pp 121-47. 92 (366), pp 341-50.
Yamagishi, Toshio and Midori Yamagishi (1994):
Sunder, Shyam (1992): “Market for Information: “Trust and Commitment in the United States and Experimental Evidence”, Econometrica, 60 (3), Japan”, Motivation and Emotion, 18 (2), pp 129-66. pp 667-95.
Yamagishi, Toshio, Karen S Cook and Motoki Watabe
– (1995): “Experimental Asset Markets: A Survey” (1998): “Uncertainty, Trust and Commitment For
in A Roth and John Kagel (ed.), Handbook of mation in the United States and Japan”, American Experimental Economics (Princeton: Princeton Journal of Sociology, 104 (1), pp 165-94. University Press), pp 445-500.
Yamagishi, Toshio, Masako Kikuchi and Motoko Kosugi
– (2001): “Real Phenomena, Theory and Design (1999): “Trust and Gullibility and Social Intelliof Laboratory Experiments in Economics”, Pre-gence”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2 (1), liminary Draft (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale pp 145-61. University).
Zwick, Rami, Ido Erev and David Budescu (1999): Thrall, R M, C H Coombs and R L Davis (1954): Decision “The Psychological and Economical Perspectives Processes (New York: Wiley). on Human Decisions in Social and Interactive
Thornton, David and Paul Kline (1982): “Reliability Contexts” in Budescu, Erev and Zwick (ed.), and Validity of the Belief-in-Human-Benevolence Games and Human Behaviour: Essays in Honor of Scale”, British Journal of Social Psychology, 21 (1), Amnon Rapoport (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum pp 57-62. Associates), pp 3-20.
For the Attention of Subscribers and Subscription Agencies Outside India
It has come to our notice that a large number of subscriptions to the EPW from outside the country together with the subscription payments sent to supposed subscription agents in India have not been forwarded to us.
We wish to point out to subscribers and subscription agencies outside India that all foreign subscriptions, t ogether with the appropriate remittances, must be forwarded to us and not to unauthorised third parties in India.
We take no responsibility whatsoever in respect of subscriptions not registered with us.
MANAGER
August 27, 2011 vol xlvi no 35
