Social Positions and Fairness Views on Inequality

IF 5.9 1区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Review of Economic Studies Pub Date : 2023-02-15 DOI:10.1093/restud/rdad019
Kristoffer Balle Hvidberg, C. Kreiner, Stefanie Stantcheva
{"title":"Social Positions and Fairness Views on Inequality","authors":"Kristoffer Balle Hvidberg, C. Kreiner, Stefanie Stantcheva","doi":"10.1093/restud/rdad019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n We link survey data on Danish people’s perceived income positions and fairness views on inequality within various reference groups to administrative records on their reference groups, income histories, and life events. People are, on average, well-informed about the income levels of their reference groups. Yet, lower-ranked respondents in all groups tend to overestimate their own position among others because they believe others’ incomes are lower than they actually are, whereas the opposite holds true for higher-ranked respondents. Misperceptions of positions in reference groups relate to proximity to other individuals, transparency norms, and visible signals of income. People view inequalities within their co-workers and education groups as significantly more unfair than overall inequality, yet underestimate inequality the most exactly within these groups. Views on the fairness of inequalities are strongly correlated with an individual’s current position, move with shocks like unemployment or promotions, and change when experimentally informing people about their actual positions. However, the higher perceived unfairness of income differences within co-workers and education groups stays unchanged. The theoretical framework shows that this can have important implications for redistribution policy.","PeriodicalId":48449,"journal":{"name":"Review of Economic Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Economic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdad019","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

We link survey data on Danish people’s perceived income positions and fairness views on inequality within various reference groups to administrative records on their reference groups, income histories, and life events. People are, on average, well-informed about the income levels of their reference groups. Yet, lower-ranked respondents in all groups tend to overestimate their own position among others because they believe others’ incomes are lower than they actually are, whereas the opposite holds true for higher-ranked respondents. Misperceptions of positions in reference groups relate to proximity to other individuals, transparency norms, and visible signals of income. People view inequalities within their co-workers and education groups as significantly more unfair than overall inequality, yet underestimate inequality the most exactly within these groups. Views on the fairness of inequalities are strongly correlated with an individual’s current position, move with shocks like unemployment or promotions, and change when experimentally informing people about their actual positions. However, the higher perceived unfairness of income differences within co-workers and education groups stays unchanged. The theoretical framework shows that this can have important implications for redistribution policy.
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
不平等的社会地位与公平观
我们将丹麦人在不同参考群体中感知的收入地位和对不平等的公平看法的调查数据与他们的参考群体、收入历史和生活事件的行政记录联系起来。一般来说,人们对参照群体的收入水平了解得很清楚。然而,在所有群体中,排名较低的受访者往往高估自己在其他人中的地位,因为他们认为其他人的收入低于他们的实际收入,而排名较高的受访者则相反。对参照群体中职位的误解与与其他个体的接近程度、透明度规范和可见的收入信号有关。人们认为同事和教育群体内部的不平等比整体的不平等更不公平,但却最低估了这些群体内部的不平等。对不平等公平性的看法与个人目前的职位密切相关,随着失业或升职等冲击而变化,并在实验性地告知人们他们的实际职位时发生变化。然而,在同事和受教育群体中,人们认为收入差异的不公平程度较高,这一点没有改变。理论框架表明,这可能对再分配政策产生重要影响。
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
10.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Founded in 1933 by a group of young British and American economists, The Review of Economic Studies aims to encourage research in theoretical and applied economics, especially by young economists. Today it is widely recognised as one of the core top-five economics journals. The Review is essential reading for economists and has a reputation for publishing path-breaking papers in theoretical and applied economics. The Review is committed to continuing to publish strong papers in all areas of economics. The Editors aim to provide an efficient and high-quality review process to the Review''s authors. Where articles are sent out for full review, authors receive careful reports and feedback. Since 1989 The Review has held annual May Meetings to offer young students in economics and finance the chance to present their research to audiences in Europe.
期刊最新文献
Strategic Foundations of Efficient Rational Expectations Capital Regulation and Shadow Finance: A Quantitative Analysis Bargaining as a Struggle Between Competing Attempts at Commitment Contingent Thinking and the Sure-Thing Principle: Revisiting Classic Anomalies in the Laboratory Single-Crossing Differences in Convex Environments
×
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