Inequality aversion predicts support for public and private redistribution

IF 9.4 1区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1073/pnas.2401445121
Thomas F. Epper, Ernst Fehr, Claus Thustrup Kreiner, Søren Leth-Petersen, Isabel Skak Olufsen, Peer Ebbesen Skov
{"title":"Inequality aversion predicts support for public and private redistribution","authors":"Thomas F. Epper, Ernst Fehr, Claus Thustrup Kreiner, Søren Leth-Petersen, Isabel Skak Olufsen, Peer Ebbesen Skov","doi":"10.1073/pnas.2401445121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rising inequality has brought redistribution back on the political agenda. In theory, inequality aversion drives people’s support for redistribution. People can dislike both advantageous inequality (comparison relative to those worse off) and disadvantageous inequality (comparison relative to those better off). Existing experimental evidence reveals substantial variation across people in these preferences. However, evidence is scarce on the broader role of these two distinct forms of inequality aversion for redistribution in society. We provide evidence by exploiting a unique combination of data. We use an incentivized experiment to measure inequality aversion in a large population sample (≈9,000 among 20- to 64-y-old Danes). We link the elicited inequality aversion to survey information on individuals’ support for public redistribution (policies that reduce income differences) and administrative records revealing their private redistribution (real-life donations to charity). In addition, the link to administrative data enables us to include a large battery of controls in the empirical analysis. Theory predicts that support for public redistribution increases with both types of inequality aversion, while private redistribution should increase with advantageous inequality aversion, but decrease with disadvantageous inequality aversion. A strong dislike for disadvantageous inequality makes people willing to sacrifice own income to reduce the income of people who are better off, thereby reducing the distance to people with more income than themselves. Public redistribution schemes achieve this but private donations to charity do not. Our empirical results provide strong support for these predictions and with quantitatively large effects compared to other predictors.","PeriodicalId":20548,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401445121","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rising inequality has brought redistribution back on the political agenda. In theory, inequality aversion drives people’s support for redistribution. People can dislike both advantageous inequality (comparison relative to those worse off) and disadvantageous inequality (comparison relative to those better off). Existing experimental evidence reveals substantial variation across people in these preferences. However, evidence is scarce on the broader role of these two distinct forms of inequality aversion for redistribution in society. We provide evidence by exploiting a unique combination of data. We use an incentivized experiment to measure inequality aversion in a large population sample (≈9,000 among 20- to 64-y-old Danes). We link the elicited inequality aversion to survey information on individuals’ support for public redistribution (policies that reduce income differences) and administrative records revealing their private redistribution (real-life donations to charity). In addition, the link to administrative data enables us to include a large battery of controls in the empirical analysis. Theory predicts that support for public redistribution increases with both types of inequality aversion, while private redistribution should increase with advantageous inequality aversion, but decrease with disadvantageous inequality aversion. A strong dislike for disadvantageous inequality makes people willing to sacrifice own income to reduce the income of people who are better off, thereby reducing the distance to people with more income than themselves. Public redistribution schemes achieve this but private donations to charity do not. Our empirical results provide strong support for these predictions and with quantitatively large effects compared to other predictors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不平等厌恶预示着对公共和私人再分配的支持
日益加剧的不平等现象使再分配重新提上了政治议程。从理论上讲,不平等厌恶促使人们支持再分配。人们既可能不喜欢有利的不平等(相对于处境较差者的比较),也可能不喜欢不利的不平等(相对于处境较好者的比较)。现有的实验证据显示,不同的人在这些偏好上存在很大差异。然而,关于这两种不同形式的不平等厌恶在社会再分配中的广泛作用的证据却很少。我们利用独特的数据组合提供了证据。我们使用激励实验来测量大量人口样本(20 至 64 岁的丹麦人中≈9,000 人)中的不平等厌恶。我们将激发出的不平等厌恶感与个人支持公共再分配(缩小收入差距的政策)的调查信息以及揭示其私人再分配(现实生活中对慈善机构的捐赠)的行政记录联系起来。此外,与行政数据的联系使我们能够在实证分析中纳入大量控制措施。理论预测,对公共再分配的支持会随着两种类型的不平等厌恶而增加,而对私人再分配的支持则会随着优势不平等厌恶而增加,但会随着劣势不平等厌恶而减少。对劣势不平等的强烈反感使人们愿意牺牲自己的收入来减少条件更好的人的收入,从而缩短与比自己收入高的人的距离。公共再分配计划能实现这一目标,但私人慈善捐款却不能。我们的实证结果为这些预测提供了强有力的支持,而且与其他预测因素相比,我们的预测在数量上有很大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
0.90%
发文量
3575
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), serves as an authoritative source for high-impact, original research across the biological, physical, and social sciences. With a global scope, the journal welcomes submissions from researchers worldwide, making it an inclusive platform for advancing scientific knowledge.
期刊最新文献
William B. Wood: Pioneering scientist and educator (1938 to 2024). Collaboration can preserve the integrity of gold standard carbon data from forest inventories. Mechanical confinement prevents ectopic platelet release. Toward a more credible assessment of the credibility of science by many-analyst studies. Wildlife trade data capture: National policy is foundational to science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1