In this study, we introduce an experimental approach to study the causal impact of trust on economic performance. We ask if trust can serve as a coordination device to help poor economies escape a poverty trap and, if so, whether such an impact is universal regardless of their initial levels of development. We follow Lei and Noussair (2002, 2007) and design a decentralized market economy that has the structure of an optimal growth model where output is allocated between consumption and saving over a sequence of periods. As in Lei and Noussair (2007), a threshold externality is introduced to generate two equilibria where the Pareto-inferior equilibrium is considered as a poverty trap. We find that trust matters in that it is more likely for high-trust economies, generated with an endogenous matching procedure, to escape the poverty trap. But we also find that the likelihood to escape depends partially on the initial endowment condition. Trust has a much weaker impact on the economies whose initial capital and output are below the Pareto-inferior equilibrium, suggesting that formal institutions and/or policy measures may be needed to engineer a “big push” for these least developed economies.

Trust is fragile. It is hard to build but easy to destroy. In this paper, we explore the fragility of trust in a stylized laboratory environment. We ask whether transgression outside a direct send-and-return relationship destroys trust and, if so, whether a competition against outsiders or an apology for misdeeds helps restore it. We find that transgression significantly reduces trust and that the broken trust can be greatly restored by group competition. Communication via an apology, impersonal or not, has an insignificant impact. By contrast, offering explanations for misbehavior is as effective as group competition.

In this paper, we study if and how having two differentiated assets affects bubble formation. We consider differences in assets' intrinsic characteristics as well as trading regulations that help differentiate two otherwise identical assets. We find that, compared to trading regulations, differences in assets' intrinsic characteristics encourage more arbitrage across assets and thus help reduce mispricing significantly. We also find that short‐term speculation does not depend on how assets or markets are being differentiated. As a result, short‐term speculation cannot be used to explain why bubbles are smaller when two assets are intrinsically different than when they are not. (JELC91, F34)

Option to leave is a double-edged sword in the repeated prisoner's dilemma paradigm. We first show that too much breakup is not necessary in subgame perfect equilibrium distribution. We demonstrate on examples of well-known cooperation inducing solutions that, once an invasion with mixed behavior strategy is allowed in the definition of neutrally stable distribution, breakups on equilibrium path may invite secret-handshake type of invasions.

When the repeated prisoner’s dilemma setup is generalized to allow for a unilateral breakup, maximal efficiency in equilibrium remains an open question. With restrictions of simple symmetry with eternal mutual cooperation, defection, or (matched) alternation on the equilibrium path, we describe the upper limit of discounted lifetime payoff and construct simple social conventions that, for a large set of parameters, achieve it. While all other well-known equilibrium designs in the literature punish defections with a breakup and thus reach the optimum only in degenerate cases, exploited cooperators in ours allow defectors to compensate them by cooperating more in the future.

In a voluntary partnership prisoner's dilemma, equilibrium discounted payoff at the origin of a partnership also serves as the worst feasible threat with which to sustain cooperation. In a population model, we introduce the Markov strategy and characterize neutrally stable equilibrium. We construct simple Markov strategies that achieve the highest discounted payoff at the origin among all subgame perfect equilibrium distributions that have either eternal cooperation or eternal (matched) alternation on their equilibrium paths. Partnerships past the first strangers' phase never break up, and potential punishments are all performed within the partnership. With this feature, our optimal Markov equilibria prove to be neutrally stable, while many commonly known ones in the literature are not.

In this article, we adopt a variant of the trust game by Berg, Dickhaut, and McCabe (1995) and the dictator game by Cox (2004) to determine if income inequality can activate in-group favoritism and, if so, whether such a bias is strong enough to survive the removal of income inequality. We find evidence of in-group favoritism only on the part of rich first movers. Rich first movers trust their in-group members significantly more in the presence of income inequality not only before but also after they gain enough experience. Poor first movers, in contrast, do not exhibit such in-group bias. They do not discriminate between in-group and out-group at the very outset of the experiment, and once they become experienced, they behave with significantly more trust toward the rich than toward the poor. We also find that in-group and out-group favoritism established in the past can be alleviated, but not completely removed, by an equal income distribution.

We report the results of an experiment that demonstrates that market experience is not necessary to eliminate bubbles in the type of asset markets studied in Smith et al. (1988). We introduce a pre-market phase in which subjects experience a dividend flow themselves by literally observing and receiving dividends for 12 periods. The robust bubble-crash phenomenon never occurs in our experiment. Our results provide strong evidence that so long as a majority of the subjects have full understanding of the structure of the dividend, market efficiency can be ensured.

In recent years, debt relief has once again been pushed to the forefront of political and economic interest. The general consensus is that with less debt burden poor countries suffering from debt overhang will be able devote more resources towards investment thereby promoting their own growth and thus benefit their creditors in the long run. An open question is which mechanism is best to relieve debt burden. In this paper, we adopt experimental methods to study the effectiveness and efficiency of debt forgiveness and debt buyback. We find that creditors tend to reduce more debt under Forgiveness than Buyback. Debtors under Forgiveness are not significantly more reciprocal than under Buyback. After controlling for the amount of debt relief, creditors are significantly worse off under Forgiveness whereas debtors are indifferent between the two schemes. From the viewpoint of promoting debt relief, debt forgiveness appears to be a more effective tool to achieve this goal. Nevertheless, if one is to maximize the overall efficiency, debt buyback is superior to debt forgiveness in making best of each relief dollar.

Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) has been used as a bearing material in total joint replacements (TJR) for more than three decades. Although UHMWPE is regarded as the gold standard in this field, microscopic wear particles are released from the polymer causing inflammatory response in the surrounding tissues. In this study, a new fast method for the quantification of polyethylene wear particles, called IRc, was introduced. The IRc method is based on infrared spectroscopy and determines the total volume of UHMWPE wear debris in particular zones around TJR. The IRc results correspond very well to the results obtained by an independent method, which estimates the numbers of wear particles by means of image analysis of scanning electron micrographs. The IRc results were also compared with radiographic images and with the reports from TJR revisions. Again, very good correlation was found, indicating that the extent of tissue damage in a particular zone around TJR is proportional to the volume of UHMWPE wear debris in the zone.

Coasian reasoning predicts that the conditions under which parties may terminate a partnership will affect bargaining between partners, but not the durability of partnerships. This paper endeavors to test both predictions in an experimental setting that allows agents to form and end partnerships endogenously and to bargain over resources. Contrary to the theoretical predictions, we find that separation rules have little effect on bargaining, but larger effects on partnership stability. Perhaps surprisingly, agents who are weaker relative to their partners are more successful when either party can end a partnership unilaterally than when both must consent to a separation. ALL ARE WELCOME Enquiries: 2616-7182 (Gary) or 2616-7191 (Ada)

A large share of the debt claims owed by the world’s poorest countries has been cancelled through the HIPC (highly indebted poor countries) debt relief initiative. It is believed that, with less debt burden, the HIPC will be able to devote more resources to investment and thus promote their own growth and benefit their creditors in the long run. But does debt forgiveness really provide the best incentive for those countries who suffers from debt overhang? In this paper, we adopt experimental methods to study the impact of two different schemes for relieving debt. The two schemes we consider here are debt forgiveness and debt buyback, with the latter being more market-based since it allows indebted countries to repurchase their own debt on the secondary market at a discount. We find that creditors tend to reduce more debt when the relief takes the form of debt forgiveness than that of buyback. Debtors under the scheme of forgiveness are not significantly more reciprocal than those of buyback. After controlling for the amount of debt relief, creditors are significantly worse off under forgiveness whereas debtors are indifferent between the two schemes. Overall, debt forgiveness yields less desirable outcomes than debt buybacks.

This paper shows that fiat money can be feasible and essential even if the trading horizon is finite and deterministic. The result hinges on two features of our model. First, individual actions can affect the future availability of productive resources. So, agents may be willing to sell for money, even if on that date they have no reason to accept it. This makes monetary trade feasible in all preceding dates. Second, agents are anonymous and direct their search for partners. So, gift-giving arrangements may be prevented because agents can misrepresent their consumption needs. This makes money essential in exploiting any gains from specialization and trade.

Coasian reasoning predicts that the conditions under which parties may terminate a partnership will affect bargaining between partners, but not the durability of partnerships. This paper endeavors to test both predictions in an experimental setting that allows agents to form and end partnerships endogenously and to bargain over resources. We find that separation rules have less effect on bargaining than predicted by theory, but larger effects on partnership stability. Perhaps surprisingly, agents who are weaker relative to their partners are more successful when either party can end a partnership unilaterally than when both must consent to a separation.

In this paper, we investigate efficiency differences between income and in-kind transfers as distribution mechanisms of foreign aid to weakest-link international public goods in a laboratory environment. We find that if there is relatively small difference in country size, then income transfers seem to provide a higher provision of the international public good, and thus higher overall welfare level than that of in-kind transfers. However, if there is a large disparity in country size, then in-kind transfers appear to provide a higher level of IPG provision and higher accompanying global welfare.

In a random-matching monetary economy, efficient and inefficient sellers choose between home or market production. Since inefficient sellers bargain tip their prices, two equilibria may exist-with high or low market participation-depending on extent of heterogeneity and frictions. In equilibrium, the presence of inefficient sellers in the market has two opposing effects. It raises trading frequencies, so it lowers consumption risk, but it lowers the value of money, raising prices. This may reduce trading efficiency. Equilibria with full and limited participation can coexist; when average efficiency is high and agents are patient, limited participation is socially preferable.