Provision of Public Goods: Fully Implementing the Core through Private Contributions
Abstract
Standard economic intuition would say that private provision of public goods will be inefficient due to free-rider problems. This view is in contrast to the results in the literature on full implementation where it is shown that (under certain conditions) games exist which only have efficient equilibria. The games usually used to demonstrate existence are quite complex and seem “unnatural” possibly leading to the perception that implementation requires a central authority to choose and impose the game. In a simple public goods setting, we show that a very natural game—similar to one often used elsewhere in the literature to model private provision—in fact fully implements the core of this economy in undominated perfect equilibria. More specifically, we consider a complete information economy with one private good and two possible social decisions. Agents voluntarily contribute any non-negative amount of the private good they choose and the social decision is to provide the public good iff contributions are sufficient to pay for it. The contributions are refunded otherwise. The set of undominated perfect equilibrium outcomes of this game is exactly the core of the economy. We give some extensions of this result, discuss the role of perfection and alternative equilibrium notions, and discuss the intuition and implications of the results.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In threshold public-good games, free-riding equilibria can fail to provide the good, but a refund policy can facilitate the efficient equilibrium.
“there exist inefficient, free-riding equilibria that fail to provide the public good, but a refund policy can make it easier to achieve the efficient equilibrium in which the good is provided.”
From The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign (2002) · cites this paper as Bagnoli and Lipman (1989)
Bagnoli and Lipman proposed refunding all contributions if the threshold is not met.
“They propose a fund-raising strategy that refunds all money to contributors if the threshold is not reached.”
From The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign (2002) · cites this paper as Bagnoli and Lipman (1989)
The refund result is consistent with Bagnoli and Lipman.
“consistent with Bagnoli and Lipman (1989).”
From The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign (2002) · cites this paper as Bagnoli and Lipman (1989)
Refunds increase charitable contributions.
“As predicted by Bagnoli and Lipman (1989), we find that refunds do indeed increase charitable contributions.”
From The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign (2002) · cites this paper as Bagnoli and Lipman (1989)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 15 · Cited by 518
- Authors
- Bagnoli, M., & Lipman, B. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- The Review of Economic Studies
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1989-10
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 583
- ISSN
- 0034-6527 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1972855376
- Cited by
- 518
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 21.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Review of Economic Studies (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Policies and Impacts
- Keywords
- public goods, core, full implementation, private provision, free-rider problem, voluntary contributions, social choice, mechanism design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review