Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/115826
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor徐麗振zh_TW
dc.contributor.author李孟庭zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorLee, MengTingen_US
dc.creator李孟庭zh_TW
dc.creatorLee, MengTingen_US
dc.date2017en_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-05T08:01:09Z-
dc.date.available2018-02-05T08:01:09Z-
dc.date.issued2018-02-05T08:01:09Z-
dc.identifierG1042550051en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/115826-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description財政學系zh_TW
dc.description104255005zh_TW
dc.description.abstract本研究進行公共財捐獻實驗,共分為三個組別進行,分別給定受試者不同的每人邊際報酬 (marginal per capita returns, i.e., MPCR),觀察受試者的捐獻決策與最終實驗結果會有何差異。而在實驗中受試者彼此處於組內競爭的關係,在每回合的捐獻決策後,組員彼此以多數決投票的方式決定一位組員出局,因此最終能獲得共同帳戶點數者僅有最後的贏家一人。本實驗共有四個發現,第一:α相同組中所有組員MPCR皆為0.5,實驗結果顯示每位組員的平均捐獻率並無顯著差異。第二:在受試者α不同的組別中,受試者的MPCR不盡相同,而具有高MPCR的組員平均捐獻率較低,而具有低MPCR的組員平均捐獻率較高。第三:在組員的投票決策方面,在α皆異組中六位組員的MPCR皆不相同,而每個階段的實驗中,組員的出局順序呈現由MPCR最高至低,最後反而是MPCR低的組員獲勝的機會最高。α兩同組中則是六位組員MPCR兩兩相同,實驗結果顯示MPCR處於整組中間的組員佔據較高勝率。第四:不論是哪個組別的實驗,都顯示隨著實驗的進行,受試者的平均捐獻率皆呈現逐漸下降的趨勢,此結果和未競爭的公共財實驗相同。zh_TW
dc.description.tableofcontents第一章 緒論 1\n第二章 研究動機與研究目的 3\n第三章 文獻回顧 5\n3.1 公共財實驗的合作 5\n3.2 公共財實驗中影響合作的原因 8\n3.3 組員反應對公共財提供之影響 9\n第四章 實驗設計 12\n4.1 實驗設計 12\n4.2 受試者α值的設定 14\n4.3 執行過程 15\n4.4 預期結果 17\n第五章 實驗結果 22\n5.1 捐獻結果 22\n5.2 不同MPCR與捐獻率的關係 30\n5.3 投票策略與最終贏家 35\n5.4 為共同帳戶帶來的點數與最終報酬 43\n第六章 結論 50\n參考文獻 53\n附錄1:實驗說明 56\n附錄2:例題 63zh_TW
dc.format.extent1420897 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1042550051en_US
dc.subject公共財實驗zh_TW
dc.subject每人邊際報酬zh_TW
dc.subject組內競爭zh_TW
dc.title公共財實驗的合作與競爭zh_TW
dc.titleCooperation and Competition in Public Goods Experimenten_US
dc.typethesisen_US
dc.relation.referenceAndreoni, J. (1988), “Why Free Ride? Strategies and Learning in Public Goods Experiments,” Journal of Public Economics 37, 291-304.\nAndreoni, J. (1990), “Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving,” Economic Journal 100, 464-477.\nAndreoni, J. and J.H. Miller (1993), “Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma: Experimental Evidence,” Economic Journal 103, 570-585.\nAndreoni, J. (1995), “Cooperation in Public-Goods Experiments: Kindness or Confusion?” The American Economics Review 85, 891-904.\nBagnoli, M. and M. McKee (1991), “Voluntary Contribution Games: Efficient Private Provision of Public Goods,” Economic Inquiry 29, 351-366.\nClark, K. and M. Sefton (2001), “The Sequential Prisoner’s Dilemma: Evidence on Reciprocation,” Economic Journal 111, 51-58.\nCroson, Rachel T.A. (1996), “Partners and Strangers Revisited,” Economics Letters 53, 25–32.\nCroson, Rachel T.A. (1998), “Theories of Altruism and Reciprocity: Evidence from Linear Public Goods Games.” Working paper, The Wharton School.\nDavis, D and Holt, (1993), Experimental Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ). \nErnst Fehr and Simon Gachter (2000), “Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments.” American Economic Review 90, 980-994.\nFisher, Joseph, R. Isaac, J. Schatzberg and J. Walker (1995), “Heterogeneous Demand for Public Goods: Behavior in the Voluntary Contributions Mechanism,” Public Choice 85, 249-266.\nHarrison, Glenn W. and Jack Hirshleifer (1989), “An Experimental Evaluation of Weakest link/Best Shot Models of Public Goods,” Journal of Political Economy 97, 201-225.\nIsaac, R. M., K. McCue and C. Plott (1985), “Public Goods Provision in Experimental Environment,” Journal of Public Economics 26, 51-74.\nIsaac, R.M. and J.M. Walker (1988), “Group Size Effect in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 103, 179-199.\nJames W. Julian and Franklyn A. Perry (1967), “Cooperation Contrasted with Intra-group and Inter-group Competition,” Sociometry 30, 79-90.\nJack Hirshleifer (1983), “From Weakest Link to Best Shot: The Voluntary Provision of Public Goods, Public Choice 41, 371-386.\nKreps, D.M., P. Milgrom, J. Robert, and R. Wilson (1982), “Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoners’ Dilemma,” Journal of Economics Theory 27, 245-252.\nKim, O. and M. Walker (1984), “The Free Rider Problem: Experimental Evidence,” Public Choice 43, 3-24.\nMarwell, 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, 1335-1360.\nMarwell, G. and R.E. Ames (1981), “Economists Free Ride, Does Anyone Else?” Journal of Public Economics 15, 295-310. \nPalfrey, T.R. and Prisbrey, J.E. (1996), “Altruism, Reputation, and Noise in Linear Public Goods Experiments,” Journal of Public Economics 61, 409-427. \nSteven D. Levitt (2003), “Testing Theories of Discrimination: Evidence from “Weakest Link”,” NBER Working paper, NO. 9949.\nL. C. Thomas (2003), “The Best Banking Strategy when Playing the Weakest Link,” The Journal of Operational Research Society 7, 747-750.\nWarr, P.G. (1982), “Pareto Optimal Redistribution and Private Charity,” Journal of Public Economics 19, 131-138.zh_TW
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
item.openairetypethesis-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
005101.pdf1.39 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


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