Co-Financing Agreements and Reciprocity: When 'No Deal' is a Good Deal

33 Pages Posted: 12 Jan 2017

See all articles by Dooseok Jang

Dooseok Jang

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)

Amrish Patel

University of East Anglia (UEA) - School of Economics

Martin Dufwenberg

University of Arizona - Department of Economics

Date Written: December 6, 2016

Abstract

Institutions for co-financing agreements often exist to encourage public good investment. Can such frameworks deliver maximal investment when agents are motivated by reciprocity? We demonstrate that indeed they can, but not in the way one might expect. If maximal investment is impossible in the absence of the institution and public good returns are high, then an agreement signed by all parties cannot lead to full investment. However, if all parties reject the co-financing agreement, then an informal deal to invest can lead to full investment. Agreement institutions may thus do more than just facilitate the signing of formal agreements; they may play a critical role in igniting informal cooperation underpinned by reciprocity.

Keywords: co-financing agreements, informal agreements, public goods, reciprocity

JEL Classification: C720, D030, F530, H410

Suggested Citation

Jang, Dooseok and Patel, Amrish and Dufwenberg, Martin, Co-Financing Agreements and Reciprocity: When 'No Deal' is a Good Deal (December 6, 2016). CESifo Working Paper Series No. 6213, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2897485 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2897485

Dooseok Jang

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) ( email )

373-1 Kusong-dong
Yuson-gu
Taejon 305-701, 130-722
Korea, Republic of (South Korea)

Amrish Patel

University of East Anglia (UEA) - School of Economics ( email )

Martin Dufwenberg (Contact Author)

University of Arizona - Department of Economics ( email )

McClelland Hall
Tucson, AZ 85721-0108
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
52
Abstract Views
506
Rank
693,003
PlumX Metrics