IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v44y2006i2p352-366.html

An Experimental Study of Compliance and Leverage in Auditing and Regulatory Enforcement

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy N. Cason
  • Lata Gangadharan

Abstract

Evidence suggests that individuals often comply with regulations even though the frequency of inspections and audits is low. We report a laboratory experiment based on the dynamic model suggested by Harrington (1988) to explain this puzzle in which participants move between two inspection groups that differ in the probability of inspection and severity of fine. Enforcement leverage arises in the Harrington model from movement between the groups based on previous observed compliance and noncompliance. We find that compliance behavior does not change as sharply as the model predicts. A simple model of bounded rationality explains these deviations from optimal behavior. (JEL C91, Q20, Q28) Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy N. Cason & Lata Gangadharan, 2006. "An Experimental Study of Compliance and Leverage in Auditing and Regulatory Enforcement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 44(2), pages 352-366, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:44:y:2006:i:2:p:352-366
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ei/cbj019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heike Hennig‐Schmidt & Hendrik Jürges & Daniel Wiesen, 2019. "Dishonesty in health care practice: A behavioral experiment on upcoding in neonatology," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 319-338, March.
    2. Vossler, Christian A. & Gilpatric, Scott M., 2018. "Endogenous audits, uncertainty, and taxpayer assistance services: Theory and experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 217-229.
    3. Christian A. Vossler & Scott M. Gilpatric, 2017. "Endogenous Tax Audits and Taxpayer Assistance Services: Theory and Experiments," Working Papers 2017-01, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    4. Bigoni, Maria & Le Coq, Chloé & Fridolfsson, Sven-Olof & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2008. "Risk Aversion, Prospect Theory, and Strategic Risk in Law Enforcement: Evidence From an Antitrust Experiment," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 696, Stockholm School of Economics.
    5. Lindeboom, Maarten & van der Klaauw, Bas & Vriend, Sandra, 2020. "Audit regimes in long-term care," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 272-298.
    6. Raphael Calel & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Frank Venmans, 2025. "Policing carbon markets," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(9), pages 1489-1507, October.
    7. Gilpatric, Scott M. & Vossler, Christian A. & Liu, Lirong, 2015. "Using competition to stimulate regulatory compliance: A tournament-based dynamic targeting mechanism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 182-196.
    8. Earnhart, Dietrich & Friesen, Lana, 2021. "Use of competitive endogenous audit mechanisms by federal and state inspectors within environmental protection agencies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    9. Evan M. Calford & Gregory DeAngelo, 2023. "Ambiguity and enforcement," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 304-338, April.
    10. Giorgio Coricelli & Mateus Joffily & Claude Montmarquette & Marie Villeval, 2010. "Cheating, emotions, and rationality: an experiment on tax evasion," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(2), pages 226-247, June.
    11. Cason, Timothy N. & Gangadharan, Lata, 2006. "Emissions variability in tradable permit markets with imperfect enforcement and banking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 199-216, October.
    12. Lana Friesen, 2012. "Certainty of Punishment versus Severity of Punishment: An Experimental Investigation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(2), pages 399-421, October.
    13. Lindeboom, Maarten & van der Klaauw, Bas & Vriend, Sandra, 2016. "Audit rates and compliance: A field experiment in care provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 160-173.
    14. Lindeboom, Maarten & van der Klaauw, Bas & Vriend, Sandra, 2014. "Audit rates and compliance: A field experiment in long-term care," CEPR Discussion Papers 9924, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Tan, Fangfang & Yim, Andrew, 2014. "Can strategic uncertainty help deter tax evasion? An experiment on auditing rules," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 161-174.
    16. Timothy N. Cason & Lana Friesen & Lata Gangadharan, 2021. "Complying with environmental regulations: experimental evidence," Chapters, in: Ananish Chaudhuri (ed.), A Research Agenda for Experimental Economics, chapter 4, pages 69-92, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Takayoshi Shinkuma & Shunsuke Managi, 2012. "Effectiveness of policy against illegal disposal of waste," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 123-145, April.
    18. Engel, Christoph & Zamir, Eyal, 2024. "Is transparency a blessing or a curse? An experimental horse race between accountability and extortionary corruption," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    19. Omer F. Baris & Shreekant Gupta & Eduardo Araral Jr, 2025. "Discretionary Enforcement and Strategic Compliance," Working papers 355, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    20. Dechenaux Emmanuel & Samuel Andrew, 2019. "Announced or Surprise Inspections and Oligopoly Competition," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 1-20, January.
    21. Coria, Jessica & Zhang, Xiao-Bing, 2015. "The Harrington Paradox Squared," Working Papers in Economics 608, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    22. Chávez, Carlos A. & Murphy, James J. & Stranlund, John K., 2025. "Social context, framing, and compliance with the law: experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:44:y:2006:i:2:p:352-366. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.