Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Faculty of Theology and Ahl-al-Bayt (Prophet’s Descendants), University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Department of Physical Geography, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

Abstract

The Dictator Game can describe many environmental challenges. That is the conditions where exploiters have asymmetric power in exploitation. For solving such environmental problems, solutions have been proposed, several of which focus on exogenous factors and others on characteristics of users. In this research, we are looking for a solution to one of these problems in the field of water for Iranian exploiters. To do this, we used experimental economics in the context of institutional analysis and development framework. The game was played in 19 groups of 5 participants with 1767 observations and then estimated using an econometrics model. This study showed that creating a club good downstream of the river and supporting local regulation (along with intra-system monitoring) can enable water distribution to occur more uniformly among users. Additionally, supporting local regulation has more substantial effects than the creation of club goods in water distribution. Furthermore, the data analysis obtained through the experiment and Ring Game shows that if the upstream exploiters have an other-regarding social value orientation, it produces positive effects on the exploit of other people so that the downstream exploiters also benefit from water. Thus, this research can have some implications for solving Iran's environmental problems similar to the dictator game.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Article Title [Persian]

ترجیحات دگرخواهانه و ترتیبات نهادی گوناگون در بهره برداری از آب رودخانه: نتایج اقتصاد آزمایشگاهی در ایران

Authors [Persian]

  • محمدمهدی کمال 1
  • هادی امیری 1
  • وحید مقدم 2
  • داریوش رحیمی 3

1 گروه اقتصاد، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

2 دانشکده اهل بیت، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

3 گروه جغرافیای طبیعی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

Abstract [Persian]

بسیاری از چالش های زیست محیطی را می توان با استفاده از بازی دیکتاتور توصیف کرد. یکی از مصادیق آن شرایطی است که بهره برداران از قدرت نامتقارن در بهره برداری برخوردار هستند. برای حل چنین مشکلات زیست محیطی ، راه حلهایی ارائه شده است که برخی از آنها بر روی عوامل برونزا تمرکز دارند و برخی دیگر بر روی ویژگیهای کاربران. در این تحقیق ، ما به دنبال راه حلی برای یکی از این مشکل در زمینه بهره برداری از آب رودخانه، برای بهره برداران ایرانی هستیم. برای این کار، از اقتصاد آزمایشگاهی در چارچوب تحلیل و توسعه نهادی استفاده شده است. این بازی در 19 گروه 5 نفره با 1767 مشاهده انجام شد و سپس با استفاده از اقتصاد سنجی تخمین مدل انجام شده است. نتایج این مطالعه نشان داد که ایجاد کالای باشگاهی در پایین دست رودخانه و همچنین حمایت از مقررات محلی (با نظارت درونی)، می تواند توزیع آب را در بین کاربران یکنواخت تر کند. همچنین، مقررات محلی میتواند اثر بیشتری در توزیع نسبت به ایجاد کالای عمومی داشته باشد. تجزیه و تحلیل داده های به دست آمده از طریق آزمایش و بازی حلقه نشان می دهد که در صورتی که بهره برداران بالادستی دارای گرایش اجتماعی با رویکرد دیگرخواهانه باشند، تأثیرات مثبتی بر بهره برداری افراد دیگر دارد به طوری که بهره برداران پایین دستی نیز از آب بهره مند می شوند. این تحقیق می تواند برای حل مشکلات زیست محیطی ایران دلالت هایی داشته باشد.

Keywords [Persian]

  • جهت گیری ارزش اجتماعی
  • کالای باشگاهی
  • قدرت نامتقارن
  • چارچوب تحلیل و توسعه نهادی
  • تحلیل نهادی
Ackermann, K., & Murphy, R. (2019). Explaining cooperative behavior in public
goods games: How preferences and beliefs affect contribution levels. Games,
10(1), 15.
Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of
resources. World Development, 29(10), 1649-1672.
Alavian, V., Qaddumi, H. M., Dickson, E., Diez, S. M., Danilenko, A., & Hirji,
R. F. (2009). Water and climate change: Understanding the risks and making
climate-smart investment decisions.
Anderies, J. M., & Janssen, M. A. (2016). Sustaining the commons (Version 2.0).
Arizona State University.
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., Lee, A., & Wasserman, H. (2013). Environmental
variability and collective action: Experimental insights from an irrigation
game. Ecological Economics, 93, 166-176.
Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: The effects of positive and
negative framing on cooperation in experiments. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 110(1), 1-21.
Baerlein, T., Kasymov, U., & Zikos, D. (2015). Self-governance and sustainable
common pool resource management in Kyrgyzstan. Sustainability, 7(1), 496-
521.
Botelho, A., Dinar, A., Pinto, L. M. C., & Rapoport, A. (2015). Promoting
cooperation in resource dilemmas: Theoretical predictions and experimental
evidence. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 54, 40-49.
Buckley, N., Chan, K. S., Chowhan, J., Mestelman, S., & Shehata, M. (2001).
Value orientations, income and displacement effects, and voluntary
contributions. Experimental Economics, 4(2), 183-195.
Camerer, C. F., & Fehr, E. (2006). When does "economic man" dominate social
behavior? Science (New York, N.Y.), 311(5757), 47-52.
Cardenas, J. C., Stranlund, J., & Willis, C. (2000). Local environmental control
and institutional crowding-out. World Development, 28(10), 1719-1733.
Cookson, R. (2000). Framing effects in public goods experiments. Experimental
Economics, 3(1), 55-79.
Cox, C. A. (2015). Decomposing the effects of negative framing in linear public
goods games. Economics Letters, 126, 63-65.
Croson, R. T. A. (2007). Theories of commitment, altruism and reciprocity:
Evidence from linear public goods games. Economic Inquiry, 45(2), 199-
216.
Cubitt, R. P., Drouvelis, M., & Gächter, S. (2011). Framing and free riding:
Emotional responses and punishment in social dilemma games. Experimental
Economics, 14(2), 254-272.
Dufwenberg, M., Gächter, S., & Hennig-Schmidt, H. (2011). The framing of
games and the psychology of play. Games and Economic Behavior, 73(2),
459-478.
504 Kamal et al., Iranian Journal of Economic Studies, 9(2) 2020, 485-508
Ebrahimnia, M., & Jafari Bibalan, B. (2017). Water resources in Iran and the
reasons for establishing river basin organizations: Review of the first
experience for Zayandeh Rud. In S. Mohajeri & L. Horlemann (Eds.),
Reviving the Dying Giant: Integrated Water Resource Management in the
Zayandeh Rud Catchment, Iran / Edited by Shahrooz Mohajeri, Lena
Horlemann (pp. 11-31). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Fleiß, J., Ackermann, K. A., Fleiß, E., Murphy, R. O., & Posch, A. (2020). Social
and environmental preferences: Measuring how people make tradeoffs
among themselves, others, and collective goods. Central European Journal
of Operations Research, 28(3), 1049-1067.
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in
simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347-
369.
Fosgaard, T. R., Hansen, L. G., & Wengström, E. (2014). Understanding the
nature of cooperation variability. Journal of Public Economics, 120, 134-
143.
Fosgaard, T. R., Hansen, L. G., & Wengström, E. (2017). Framing and
misperception in public good experiments. The Scandinavian Journal of
Economics, 119(2), 435-456.
Foster, S. S. D., & Chilton, P. J. (2003). Groundwater: The processes and global
significance of aquifer degradation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 358(1440), 1957-1972.
Giamatte, M., Lambsdorff, J., Grundmann, S., & KammerMeier, F. (2020).
ClassEx. University of Passau. Retrieved from https://classex.de/.
Grechenig, K., Nicklisch, A., & Thöni, C. (2010). Punishment despite reasonable
doubt-A public goods experiment with sanctions under uncertainty. Journal
of Empirical Legal Studies, 7(4), 847-867.
Griesinger, D. W., & Livingston, J. W. (1973). Toward a model of interpersonal
motivation in experimental games. Behavioral Science, 18(3), 173-188.
Ibele, B., Sandri, S., & Zikos, D. (2017). Endogenous versus exogenous rules in
water management: An experimental cross-country comparison.
Mediterranean Politics, 22(4), 504-536.
Janssen, M., Anderies, J. M., & Joshi, S. R. (2011). Coordination and cooperation
in asymmetric commons dilemmas. Exp Econ, 14.
Janssen, M. A., Anderies, J. M., & Cardenas, J. C. (2011). Head-enders as
stationary bandits in asymmetric commons: Comparing irrigation
experiments in the laboratory and the field. Ecological Economics, 70(9),
1590-1598.
Janssen, M. A., Anderies, J. M., Pérez, I., & Yu, D. J. (2015). The effect of
information in a behavioral irrigation experiment. Water Resources and
Economics, 12, 14-26.
Janssen, M. A., Bousquet, F., Cardenas, J. C., Castillo, D., & Worrapimphong, K.
(2012). Field experiments on irrigation dilemmas. Agricultural Systems, 109,
65-75.
Kamal et al., Iranian Journal of Economic Studies, 9(2) 2020, 485-508 505
Javaid, A., & Falk, T. (2015). Incorporating local institutions in irrigation
experiments: Evidence from rural communities in Pakistan. Ecology and
Society, 20(2), 28-74.
Ju’ub, G. A., & Azzam, R. (2011). Water conflicts in the Middle East: The twin
rivers Orontes and Litani. In F. Zereini & W. Jaeschke (Eds.), Water in the
Middle East and in North Africa: Resources, Protection and Management
(pp. 353-362). Berlin, London: Springer.
Khadjavi, M., & Lange, A. (2015). Doing good or doing harm: Experimental
evidence on giving and taking in public good games. Experimental
Economics, 18(3), 432-441.
Lansing, J., John, L., Miller, J., Ilmu, L., Indonesia, P., & Aryawan, G. (2004).
Cooperation, games, and ecological feedback: Some insights from Bali.
Current Anthropology, 46, 328-344.
Ledyard, J. O. (1995b). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In J. H.
Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics
(pp. 111-194). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Luccasen, R. A. (2012). Individual differences in contributions and crowding-out
of a public good. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 59(4), 419-441.
Mahe, T., & Muller, L. (2007). Social preferences and experimental auctions for
ethical and eco-labelled food. Conference of the French Economic
Association, Tutorial session. Retrieved From
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2f22/f58ea291d3d7c182dda38e5420025e7
ccbcd.pdf.
Mansouri Daneshvar, M. R., Ebrahimi, M., & Nejadsoleymani, H. (2019). An
overview of climate change in Iran: Facts and statistics. Environmental
Systems Research, 8(1), 1-10.
Marco, A., Janssen, F. B., Juan-Camilo, C., Daniel, C., & Kobchai, W. (2012).
Field experiments on irrigation dilemmas. Agricultural Systems.
McGinnis, M. D. (2011). An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom
workshop: A simple guide to a complex framework. Policy Studies Journal,
39(1), 169-183.
Meinzen-Dick, R. (2007). Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(39),
15200-15205.
Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2016). Four billion people facing severe
water scarcity. Science Advances, 2(2), e1500323.
Moisan, F., ten-Brincke, R., Murphy, R. O., & Gonzalez, C. (2018). Not all
prisoner’s dilemma games are equal: Incentives, social preferences, and
cooperation. Decision, 5(4), 306-322.
Murphy, R. O., & Ackermann, K. A. (2015). Social preferences, positive
expectations, and trust based cooperation. Journal of Mathematical
Psychology, 67, 45-50.
506 Kamal et al., Iranian Journal of Economic Studies, 9(2) 2020, 485-508
Murphy, R. O., Rapoport, A., & Parco, J. E. (2006). The breakdown of
cooperation in iterative real-time trust dilemmas. Experimental Economics,
9(2), 147-166.
Nouri, H., Stokvis, B., Galindo, A., Blatchford, M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2019).
Water scarcity alleviation through water footprint reduction in agriculture:
The effect of soil mulching and drip irrigation. The Science of the Total
Environment, 653, 241-252.
Offerman, T., Sonnemans, J., & Schram, A. (1996). Value orientations,
expectations and voluntary contributions in public goods. The Economic
Journal, 106(437), 817.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for
collective action. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of
collective action: Presidential address, American political science
association, 1997. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1-22.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. United Kingdom:
Princton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2009). Building trust to solve commons dilemmas: Taking small steps
to test an evolving theory of collective action. In S. A. Levin (Ed.), Springer
Series in Game Theory. Games, Groups, and the Global Good (pp. 207-228).
Berlin, New York: Springer.
Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development
framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7-27.
Ostrom, E. (2019). Institutional rational choice. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories
of the policy process (pp. 21-64). London: Routledge.
Ostrom, E., & Gardner, R. (1993). Coping with asymmetries in the commons:
Self-governing irrigation systems can work. Journal of Economic Perspecti,
7(4), 93-112.
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool
resources. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ostrom, E., & Walker, J. (2005). Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons
for experimental research. The Russell Sage Foundation Series on Trust.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved from
http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=4416944.
Otto, I. M., & Wechsung, F. (2014). The effects of rules and communication in a
behavioral irrigation experiment with power asymmetries carried out in
North China. Ecological Economics, 99, 10-20.
Park, E. -S. (2000). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: A further experimental study
of framing effects on free-riding. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 43(4), 405-421.
Pham, L. T., Otto, I. M., & Zikos, D. (2019). Self-governance and the effects of
rules in irrigation systems: Evidence from laboratory and framed field
experiments in China, India and Vietnam. Water Economics and Policy,
05(01), 1850009.
Kamal et al., Iranian Journal of Economic Studies, 9(2) 2020, 485-508 507
Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: collective
action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton University
Press.
Saijo, T., & Nakamura, H. (1995). The “spite” dilemma in voluntary contribution
mechanism experiments. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39(3), 535-560.
Schlager, E., & Cox, M. (2018). The IAD framework and the SES framework: An
introduction and assessment of the Ostrom workshop frameworks. In C. M.
Weible (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (4th ed., pp. 215-252). Fourth
Edition. | Boulder, CO : Westview Press, 2017.: Routledge.
Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (2000). Decision-induced focusing in social dilemmas:
Give-some, keep-some, take-some, and leave-some dilemmas. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 92-104.
Villamayor-Tomas, S., Thiel, A., Amblard, L., Zikos, D., & Blanco, E. (2019).
Diagnosing the role of the state for local collective action: Types of action
situations and policy instruments. Environmental Science & Policy, 97, 44-
57.
Villena, M. G., & Zecchetto, F. (2011). Subject-specific performance information
can worsen the tragedy of the commons: Experimental evidence. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 32(3), 330-347.
World Economic Forum. (2019). Global risks report.
Yoon, T., Rhodes, C., & Shah, F. A. (2015). Upstream water resource
management to address downstream pollution concerns: A policy framework
with application to the Nakdong River basin in South Korea. Water
Resources Research, 51(2), 787-805.
Eyler, R. (2007). Economic sanctions: International policy and political economy
at work.