Stefania Bortolotti

Amoral Familism, Social Capital, or Trust? The Behavioural Foundations of the Italian North-South Divide

We present the first laboratory‐in‐the field experiment on the Italian North–South divide. Using a representative sample of the population, we measure whether regional disparities in ability to cooperate emerge even if differences in geography, institutions and criminal intrusion are silenced. We report that a behavioural gap in cooperation exists: Northern and Southern citizens react differently to the same incentives. Moreover, this gap cannot be accounted for by tolerance for risk, proxies of social capital and ‘amoral familism’. At least a share of North–South disparities is likely to derive from persistent differences in social norms.

An Experiment on Retail Payments Systems

We study the behavioral underpinnings of adopting cash versus electronic payments in retail transactions. A novel theoretical and experimental framework is developed to primarily assess the impact of sellers’ service fees and buyers’ rewards from using electronic payments. Buyers and sellers face a coordination problem, independently choosing a payment method before trading. In the experiment, sellers readily adopt electronic payments but buyers do not. Eliminating service fees or introducing rewards significantly boosts the adoption of electronic payments. Hence, buyers’ incentives play a pivotal role in the diffusion of electronic payments but monetary incentives cannot fully explain their adoption choices. Findings from this experiment complement empirical findings based on surveys and field data.

Exploring the Effects of Real Effort in a Weak-Link Experiment

We report results from a weak-link i?½ often also called minimum-effort i?½ game experiment with multiple Pareto-ranked strict pure-strategy Nash equilibria, using a real-effort rather than a chosen-effort task: subjects have to sort and count coins and their payoff depends on the worst performance in the group. While in the initial rounds our subjects typically coordinate on inefficient outcomes, almost 80 percent of the groups are able to overcome coordination failure in the later rounds. Our results are in stark contrast to results typically reported in the literature.

At the Root of the North–South Cooperation Gap in Italy: Preferences or Beliefs?

The marked difference in the development of the North and the South of Italy represents a prototypical case of seemingly intractable within-country disparities. Recent research found that a plausible determinant of this socio-economic gap would be a difference in the ability to cooperate. Through a laboratory experiment we investigate whence this difference derives, whether from different preferences or from different beliefs. Our findings indicate that Northerners and Southerners share the same individual pro-social preferences, and that the cooperation gap lies rather in the pessimistic beliefs that Southerners have about their cooperativeness. Southerners, furthermore, manifest a stronger aversion to social risk, as compared to the risk of nature. A policy implication is that an intervention or an event that reduced pessimistic beliefs would directly boost cooperation levels.

Norms of Punishment in the General Population

Norms of cooperation and punishment differ across societies, but also within a single society. In an experiment with two subject pools sharing the same geographical and cultural origins, we show that opportunities for peer punishment increase cooperation among students but not in the general population. In previous studies, punishment magnified the differences across societies in peoples ability to cooperate. Here, punishment reversed the order: with punishment, students cooperate more than the general population while they cooperate less without it. Our results obtained with students cannot be readily generalized to the society at large.

Unbundling Efficient Breach: An Experiment

Current law and economics scholarship analyzes efficient breach cases monolithically. The standard analysis holds that breach is efficient when performance of a contract generates a negative total surplus for the parties. However, by simplistically grouping efficient breach cases as of a single kind, the prior literature overlooks that gainseeking breaches might be different from loss-avoiding breaches. To capture these different motives, we designed a novel game called Contract-Breach Game where we exogenously varied the reasons for the breach — pursuing a gain or avoiding a loss — under a specific performance remedy. Results from an incentivized laboratory experiment indicate that the motives behind the breach induce sizable differences in behavior; subjects are less willing to renegotiate when facing gain-seeking than loss-avoiding breaches, and the compensation premium obtained by the promisee is higher. Our analysis suggests that inequality aversion is an important driver of our results; indeed, inequality-averse subjects accept low offers more often in cases of loss-avoiding breaches than gain-seeking breaches. These results give us insight into the preferences and expectations of ordinary people in a case of a breach.

Unbundling Efficient Breach

Current law and economics scholarship analyzes efficient breach cases monolithically. The standard analysis holds that breach is efficient when performance of a contract generates a negative surplus for the parties. However, by simplistically grouping efficient breach cases as of a single kind, the prior literature overlooks some important factors that meaningfully distinguish types of efficient breach, such as effects of the breach on productive and allocative efficiency, restraints on the incentive to breach, information-forcing, and competitive effects of the right to breach. We argue that these factors are important for the development of a more nuanced economic theory of efficient breach. More specifically, we contend that there are relevant economic considerations that distinguish breaches carried out for the pursuit of a gain (“gain-seeking breaches”) from breaches meant to prevent a loss (“loss-avoiding breaches”) and breaches carried out by the seller from those carried out by a buyer. We show that the economic argument for loss-avoiding efficient breach is stronger than for gain-seeking efficient breach especially when the breaching party is the seller. From this analysis, we generated several hypotheses, which we tested in an incentivized lab experiment. The data show that test participants’ reactions differ with respect to gain-seeking and loss-avoiding breaches, exhibiting behavior in line with our theoretical predictions, giving us insight into the preferences and expectations of ordinary people in cases of breach, and being correlated with the apparent intuitions of judges in deciding efficient breach cases.