Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T15:03:46.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distributing scarce jobs and output: experimental evidence on the dynamic effects of rationing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Guidon Fenig and
Luba Petersen
Guidon Fenig*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Saskatchewan, 9 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A5, Canada
Luba Petersen*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
*
g.fenig@usask.ca
lubap@sfu.ca
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does the allocation of scarce jobs and production influence their supply? We present the results of a macroeconomics laboratory experiment that investigates the effects of alternative rationing schemes on economic stability. Participants play the role of worker-consumers who interact in labor and output markets. All output, which yields a reward to participants, must be produced through costly labor. Automated firms hire workers to produce output so long as there is sufficient demand for all production. In every period either output or labor hours are rationed. Random queue, equitable, and priority (i.e., property rights) rationing schemes are compared. Production volatility is the lowest under a priority rationing rule and is significantly higher under a scheme that allocates the scarce resource through a random queue. Production converges toward the steady state under a priority rule, but can diverge to significantly lower levels under a random queue or equitable rule where there is the opportunity for and perception of free-riding. At the individual level, rationing in the output market leads consumer-workers to supply less labor in subsequent periods. A model of myopic decision-making is developed to rationalize the results.

Keywords

RationingAllocation rulesUnemploymentExperimental macroeconomicsLaboratory experimentGeneral equilibrium

JEL classification

E62: Fiscal PolicyE13: NeoclassicalH31: HouseholdH4: Publicly Provided GoodsC92: Laboratory, Group Behavior

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2017, pp. 707 - 735
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementry material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-016-9507-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We have benefited from the insightful comments of Katherine Anderson, David Freeman, Catherine Eckel, George Evans, Chloe Gibbs, Brit Grosskopf, Erik Kimbrough, Corrine Low, Charles Noussair, Rosemary Prentice, Alexandra van Geen, two anonymous referees as well as seminar and conference participants at University of British Columbia, University of Saskatchewan, the 2014 Canadian Economic Association Meetings, the 2015 Barcelona GSE Summer Forum in Theoretical and Experimental Macroeconomics, and the 2016 North American Economic Science Association. We also appreciate the insightful comments from two anonymous referees. Finally, we would like to thank the Sury Initiative for Global Finance and International Risk Management and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for generous financial support and Camila Cordoba and Matthew Pentecost for excellent research assistance.

References

Akerlof, GA (1984). Gift exchange and efficiency-wage theory: Four views. American Economic Review, 74(2), 79–83.Google Scholar
Bao, T, Duffy, J, & Hommes, C (2013). Learning, forecasting and optimizing: An experimental study. European Economic Review, 61, 186–204. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2013.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barro, RJ, & Grossman, HI (1971). A general disequilibrium model of income and employment. American Economic Review, 61, 82–93.Google Scholar
Benassy, JP (1975). Neo-Keynesian disequilibrium theory in a monetary economy. Review of Econonomic Studies, 42, 503–523. 10.2307/2296791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benassy, JP (1977). On quantity signals and the foundations of effective demand theory. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 79, 147–168. 10.2307/3439505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, A (1998). Eating for victory: Food rationing and the politics of domesticity, Urbana: University of Illinois, Preview of economic studies.Google Scholar
Bosch-Domènech, A, & Silvestre, J (1997). Credit constraints in general equilibrium: Experimental review of econonomic studies results. Economic Journal, 107, 1445–1464. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.1997.tb00057.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, NJ, Cuff, K, Hurley, J, McLeod, L, Nuscheler, R, & Cameron, D (2012). Willingness-to-pay for parallel private health insurance: Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Canadian Journal of Economics, 45, 137–166. 10.1111/j.1540-5982.2011.01690.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, RJ (2010). Macroeconomics after the crisis: Time to deal with the pretense-of-knowledge syndrome. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24, 85–102. 10.1257/jep.24.4.85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F. and Weigelt, K. (1993). Convergence in experimental double auctions for stochastically live assets, In: The double auction market: Institutions, theories, and Evidence, (pp. 355–396). Proceedings Volume in the Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity. No. 14. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Clower, RW (1965). The keynesian counterrevolution: A theoretical appraisal. The theory of interest rates, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Colander, D, Howitt, P, Kirman, A, Leijonhufvud, A, & Mehrling, P (2008). Beyond DSGE models: Toward an empirically based macroeconomics. American Economic Review, 98, 236–240. 10.1257/aer.98.2.236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crockett, S. and Duffy, J. (2015) An experimental test of the Lucas Asset Pricing Model, Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Drazen, A (1980). Recent developments in macroeconomic disequilibrium theory. Econometrica, 48, 283–306. 10.2307/1911097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drèze, JH (1975). Existence of an exchange equilibrium under price rigidities. International Economic Review, 16, 301–320. 10.2307/2525813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenig, G., Mileva, M., and Petersen, L. (2016) Leave the bubble alone!: Deflating asset price bubbles in an experimental macroeconomy, Unpublished working paper, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Futia, CA (1975). A theory of effective demand, Bell Laboratories: Mimeo.Google Scholar
Gale, D (1979). Large economies with trading uncertainty. Review of Econonomic Studies, 46, 319–338. 10.2307/2297055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, JB, & Roth, AE (2012). Organ allocation policy and the decision to donate. American Economic Review, 102, 2018–2047. 10.1257/aer.102.5.2018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreamer, J (2014). Household debt, unemployment, and slow recoveries, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Lavee, J, Ashkenazi, T, Stoler, A, Cohen, J, & Beyar, R (2013). Preliminary marked increase in the national organ donation rate in Israel following implementation of a new organ transplantation law. American Journal of Transplantation, 13, 780–785. 10.1111/ajt.12001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lefebvre, M (2013). Can rationing rules for common review of econonomic studiesources impact self-insurance decisions. Strategic Behavior and the Environment, 3, 1–39. 10.1561/102.00000029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, V, & Noussair, CN (2002). An experimental test of an optimal growth model. American Economic Review, 92, 549–570. 10.1257/00028280260136246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lian, P, & Plott, CR (1998). General equilibrium, markets, macroeconomics and money in a laboratory experimental environment. Economic Theory, 12, 21–75. 10.1007/s001990050210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaillat, P, & Saez, E (2015). Aggregate demand, idle time, and unemployment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130, 570–569 10.1093/qje/qjv006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaillat, P (2012). Do matching frictions explain unemployment? Not in bad times. American Economic Review, 102, 1721–1750. 10.1257/aer.102.4.1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noussair, C, Pfajfar, D, & Zsiros, J (2014). Persistence of shocks in an experimental dynamic stochastic general equilibrium economy. Experiments in Macroeconomics, Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited 71–108. 10.1108/S0193-230620140000017003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noussair, C, Pfajfar, D, & Zsiros, J (2015). Pricing decisions in an experimental dynamic stochastic general equilibrium economy. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 109, 188–202. 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.10.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noussair, CN, Plott, CR, & Riezman, RG (1995). An experimental investigation of the patterns of international trade. American Economic Review, 85, 462–491.Google Scholar
Noussair, C, Plott, C, & Riezman, R (2007). Production, trade, prices, exchange rates and equilibration in large experimental economies. European Economic Review, 51, 49–76. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2006.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patinkin, D (1956). Money, intereview of econonomic studiest, and prices: An integration of monetary and value theory, Evanston: Row Peterson.Google Scholar
Petersen, L (2015). Do expectations and decisions review of econonomic studiespond to monetary policy?. Journal of Economic Studies, 42(6), 972–1004. 10.1108/JES-08-2015-0149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravn, M. and Sterk, V. (2013) Job uncertainty and deep recessions, Working Paper, University College London.Google Scholar
Riedl, A, & Van Winden, F (2007). An experimental investigation of wage taxation and unemployment in closed and open economies. European Economic Review, 51, 871–900. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2006.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salop, SC (1979). A model of the natural rate of unemployment. American Economic Review, 69, 117–125.Google Scholar
Shapiro, C, & Stiglitz, JE (1984). Equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device. American Economic Review, 74, 433–444.Google Scholar
Solow, RM (1980). Another possible source of wage stickiness. Journal of Macroeconomics, 1, 79–82. 10.1016/0164-0704(79)90022-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, JE (1976). The efficiency wage hypothesis, surplus labour, and the distribution of income in LDCs. Oxford Economic Papers, 28(2), 185–207. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, LEO (1980). Effective demand and stochastic rationing. Review of Econonomic Studies, 47, 339–355. 10.2307/2296996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Fenig and Petersen supplementary material

Online Appendix
Download Fenig and Petersen supplementary material(File)
File 2.1 MB