臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究將多數決投票機制與配合補貼機制及退款補貼機制作結合，並採用實驗室實驗方法探討在多數決投票的環境下，配合及退款補貼機制對捐獻行為會造成什麼影響及檢測人們在此環境下是否對於補貼機制存在明顯的偏好。

根據實驗結果發現，當採行的補貼機制是透過多數票決而決定時，多數的組別採用退款補貼機制，但是個人投票選擇與多數票決下所進行之補貼機制是否相同對於捐獻決策並無顯著差異。此外，本研究得出受試者實際於配合補貼機制下之捐獻會顯著高於等價的退款補貼機制之捐獻，此結果亦與先前文獻的結果一致。最後，本研究有個新發現，無特別偏好的受試者於等價的補貼機制環境下，捐獻之數額符合理論上之等價關係。

This study combines the majority voting with the matching and rebate subsidy mechanism and conducts a laboratory experiment to investigate the effect of subsidy mechanisms on the behavior of the charitable donation. This study also examines whether people have preference for the particular subsidy mechanism in the environment with majority voting.

According to the experimental results, we find that when the subsidy mechanism adopted is decided by the majority voting, most groups adopt the rebate subsidy mechanism. However, whether the individual option coincides with the adopted subsidy mechanism does not affect the donation decision significantly. Furthermore, this paper finds that the individual donation is significantly greater in the matching subsidy mechanism than in the equivalent rebate subsidy mechanism, and this result is consistent with previous literature. There is a new finding in this study that the donation of a subject without preference for the subsidy mechanisms is consistent with the theoretical prediction.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機與目的 3
第二章 文獻回顧 5
第一節 補貼機制對慈善捐獻之影響 5
第二節 投票機制的重要性及影響 9
第三章 實驗過程與設計 11
第一節 實驗過程 11
第二節 實驗設計 12
第四章 實驗結果 16
第一節 基本資料分析 16
第二節 投票之結果分析 19
第三節 投票選擇與進行補貼機制對捐獻的影響 22
第一小節 無母數分析 22
第二小節 迴歸分析 27
第四節 兩種補貼機制之捐獻行為分析 32
第一小節 無母數分析 32
第二小節 迴歸分析 35
第五節 個人偏好之分析 36
第五章 結論 38
參考文獻 40
附錄一 實驗說明 42
附錄二 測試題 48
附錄三 問卷 50

中文部分

朱紀燕(2002)，《台灣地區個人捐贈的所得稅誘因之實證分析》，國立政治大學財政研究所碩士論文。

伊崇恩(2005)，《我國個人捐贈影響因素之實證研究》，國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。

英文部分

Andreoni, J. (1989). “Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and
Ricardian equivalence”. The Journal of Political Economy, 1447-1458.

Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. (2003). “Charitable Giving by Married
Couples Who Decides and Why Does it Matter? ”. Journal of human Resources, 38(1), 111-133.

Bowen, H. R. (1943). “The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources ”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 58: 27-64.

Borge, L. E., Falch, T., & Tovmo, P. (2008). “Public sector efficiency: the roles of political and budgetary institutions, fiscal capacity, and democratic participation”. Public Choice, 136(3-4), 475-495.

Davis, D. D., Millner, E. L., & Reilly, R. J. (2005). “ Subsidy schemes and charitable contributions: a closer look”. Experimental economics, 8(2), 85-106.

Davis, D. D., & Millner, E. L. (2005). “ Rebates, matches, and consumer behavior”. Southern Economic Journal, 410-421.

Davis, D. D. (2006). “Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects”. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 13.

Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). “Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments”. The economic journal, 108(448), 726-735.

Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2003). “Rebate versus matching: does how we
subsidize charitable contributions matter? ”. Journal of Public Economics, 87(3), 681-701.

Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2006). “Subsidizing charitable giving with rebates or matching: Further laboratory evidence”. Southern Economic Journal, 72(4), 794-807.

Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2006). “Do donors care about subsidy type: An
experimental study. Experiments investigating fundraising and charitable contributors”. Research in experimental economics, 11, 157-176.

Eckel, C. C., De Oliveira, A., & Grossman, P. J. (2007). “ Is more information always better? An experimental study of charitable giving and Hurricane Katrina”. Southern Economic Journal, 74(2).

Feldstein, M., & Taylor, A. (1976). “ The income tax and charitable contributions”. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1201-1222.

Fischbacher, U. (2007). “ z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments”. Experimental economics, 10(2), 171-178.

Fong, C. M., & Luttmer, E. F. (2011). “Do fairness and race matter in generosity? Evidence from a nationally representative charity experiment”. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5), 372-394.

Innocenti, A., & Rapallini, C. (2011). “Voting by Ballots and Feet in the
Laboratory”. Giornale degli Economistie Annali di Economia, 3-24.

Lukas, I., Grossman, P. J., & Eckel, C. (2010). “Preference or confusion:
Understanding the differential impact of rebate and matching subsidies”. Working Paper. Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN.

Meer, J. (2013). “The habit of giving”. Economic Inquiry, 51(4), 2002-2017.

Randolph, W. C. (1995). “Dynamic income, progressive taxes, and the timing of
charitable contributions”. Journal of Political Economy, 709-738.