Self Control and Liquidity: How to Design a Commitment Contract
Self Control and Liquidity: How to Design a Commitment Contract
7 July, 2020 •Similar Articles
Using lotteries to encourage saving: Experimental evidence from Kenya
In this study, we evaluate the provision of lottery-linked deposit accounts (LLDA) – a savings scheme incorpor...
Savings and Subsidies, Separately and Together: Decomposing Effects of a Bundled Anti-Poverty Program
Many anti-poverty programs are ‘bundled’, in that they have multiple
active program components. We shed light on the interplay be...
Price and Information Type in Life Microinsurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Mexico
Poor households in developing countries face large and varied risks, but often have inadequate informal tools to manage them. Microinsurance is bei...
If individuals have self-control problems that lead them to spend money when they had previously planned to save it, they may take up financial commitment devices that restrict their future ability to access their funds. We experimentally investigate how the demand for commitment contracts is affected by contract design features. In our experiments, each subject is endowed with a sum of money and asked to divide that money between a liquid account, which permits unrestricted withdrawals at any time over the course of the months-long experiment, and one or more commitment accounts, which impose withdrawal penalties or restrictions. The design features of the liquid account are the same for all subjects, but the design features of the commitment account(s) are randomized across subjects. When the interest rates on the two types of accounts are the same, we find that allocations to a commitment account are higher when the account is less liquid. The commitment account that disallows early withdrawals altogether attracts the largest allocations. However, this relationship no longer holds when the commitment account interest rate is greater than the liquid account interest rate.