Centralized Management and Peer Punishment in Groups

Previous experimental studies have shown that centralized management that a legitimate enforcer implements can be effective in improving cooperation in social dilemmas. The current study examines whether the presence of peer punishment opportunities, especially the chance of retaliating the enforcer, affects centralized management and contributions in a public goods game. In particular, I study two types of enforcers who have discretionary rights over the redistribution of wealth, non-corruptible and corruptible . The results indicate that with a non-corruptible enforcer contributions do not decrease saliently in the presence of peer punishment opportunities, though centralized management is weakened. But contribution levels decrease significantly as a corruptible enforcer implements poorer management when facing the punishments from other members, which appears to be explained by a crowding-out effect of monitoring and punishment on the enforcer's responsibility perceptions