Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/26907 
Year of Publication: 
2006
Series/Report no.: 
Preprints of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods No. 2006,23
Publisher: 
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn
Abstract: 
We report the results of an experimental study that compares voting mechanisms in the provision of public goods. Subjects can freely decide how much they want to contribute. Whether the public good is ¯nally provided is decided by a referendum under full information about all contributions. If provision is rejected, contributions are reduced by a fee and reimbursed. We compare unanimity with majority voting and both to the baseline of cheap talk. Contributions are highest under unanimity. Yet, results concerning overall e±ciency are mixed. When provision occurs, only unanimity enhances e±ciency. Overall, however, unanimity leads to too many rejections.
JEL: 
C72
C91
H41
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
399.18 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.