We investigate in a laboratory experiment whether procedural fairness concerns affect how well individuals are able to solve a coordination problem in a two-player Volunteer’s Dilemma. Subjects receive external action recommendations, either to volunteer or to abstain from it, in order to facilitate coordination and improve efficiency. We manipulate the fairness of the recommendation procedure by varying the probabilities of receiving the disadvantageous recommendation to volunteer between players. We find evidence that while recommendations improve overall efficiency regardless of their implications for expected payoffs, there are behavioural asymmetries depending on the recommendation: advantageous recommendations are followed less frequently than disadvantageous ones and beliefs about others’ actions are more pessimistic in the treatment with recommendations inducing unequal expected payoffs.

We report experimental evidence showing a positive effect of redistribution on economic efficiency via the self-enforcement of property rights, and identify which status groups benefit more and which less. We model an economy in which wealth is produced if players voluntarily comply with the—efficient but inequitable—prevailing social order. We vary exogenously whether redistribution is feasible, and how it is organized. We find that redistribution benefits all status groups as property disputes recede. It is most effective when transfers are not discretionary but instead imposed by some exogenous administration. In the absence of coercive means to enforce property rights, it is the higher status groups, not the lower status groups, who benefit from redistribution being compulsory rather than voluntary.

Coordination problems arise in many economic, political, and social situations. Many times, authorities and institutions are created to solve these coordination problems. However, the success of these institutions depends on whether people are willing to follow their prescriptions. Using a behavioral experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk we analyze whether an authority can aid in solving hawk-dove coordination games and whether its success depends on a shared identity by the players. The authority is represented in our experiment by a randomizing device that recommends actions to players to implement a socially efficient correlated equilibrium. In the game, players are better off following the recommendations if they believe others will do as well. We investigate whether people are more likely to follow recommendations when they have a shared identity. We find that the device's success is not driven by group membership, but rather by the content of its recommendations.

In the existing literature, panic-based bank runs are triggered by a commonly acknowledged and observed sunspot signal. There are only two equilibrium realizations resulting from the commonly observed sunspot signal: Everyone runs or no one runs. I consider a more general and more realistic situation in which consumers observe noisy private sunspot signals. If the noise in the signals is sufficiently small, there exists a proper correlated equilibrium for some demand deposit contracts. A full bank run, a partial bank run (in which some consumers panic whereas others do not), or no bank run occurs, depending on the realization of the sunspot signals. If the probabilities of runs are small, the optimal demand deposit contract tolerates full and partial bank runs.