Egalitarian Preferences Research Articles

Egalitarian preferences in young children depend on the genders of the interacting partners

In decisions between equal and unequal resource distributions, women are often believed to be more prosocial than men. Previous research showed that fairness attitudes develop in childhood, but their—possibly gendered, developmental trajectory remains unclear. We hypothesised that gender-related fairness attitudes might depend not only on the gender of the Allocator, but also on that of the Recipient. To examine this, we tested 332 three to 8-year-old children in a paired resource allocation task, with both boys and girls acting as Allocators and Recipients. We indeed found gender-related effects: girls more than boys aimed to reduce advantageous inequity, and Allocators of both genders were more averse against male Recipients being better off. Notably, older girls exhibited an envy bias, i.e., they tolerated disadvantageous inequity more when the resource allocation was in favour of other girls than when it favoured boys. We also observed a gender-related spite gap in boys aged 7-8: unlike girls, boys treated other boys with spite, i.e., they valued unfair distributions in their own favour over equal outcomes, especially if rejecting advantageous inequity was costly. This pattern hints at contextualised gender-related fairness preferences that evolve with age that could depend on same- and cross-gender past interaction experiences.

The Power of Diversity: Class, Networks and Attitudes Towards Inequality

We examine how inter-class relationships shape attitudes towards inequality. Our theoretical frame defines attitudes towards inequality as ethical dispositions and hypothesises that class-based network diversity may favour the development of what has been termed a ‘reflexive habitus’ that likely pushes for more egalitarian dispositions. The focus of our enquiry is on Chile – one of the most unequal countries in the world. We use large-scale representative survey data collected in 2016 (N = 2927). Results of our regression analyses indicate that class diversity in social networks strongly increases awareness of inequality and more egalitarian preferences while reducing belief in meritocracy and the perception that the current distribution is fair. Additional analyses suggest that network diversity influences views on inequality to a similar degree among individuals from different social classes, except for meritocratic beliefs, where network diversity especially affects the upper class. We conclude by discussing the importance of reducing socio-economic segregation.

Happiness Scholarship and Redistributive Preferences

Despite a steep rise in income inequality over the past five decades, Americans’ preferences for redistribution have remained stagnant. Previous research suggests that redistributive preferences are rooted in stable institutional and cultural contexts but can change with exposure to information. We investigate the role of understandings of the link between income and psychological well-being in shaping policy preferences. Further, we consider whether effects differ if similar information is framed in terms of disadvantages for the poor versus advantages for the affluent. In a large, preregistered online experiment (N = 2,751), we examined the effects of three common themes in scholarship on happiness and well-being: Money Prevents Unhappiness, Money Provides Happiness, and Money Doesn’t Matter. Results show that learning that Money Prevents Unhappiness (versus the other two themes) increased egalitarian preferences. Effects were moderated by political ideology, income, and subjective social class but not by race. We discuss the implications of these findings in light of the current cultural discourse about happiness, which often privileges non-income causes and positive emotions.

Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity

Policy makers need to make decisions regarding the allocation of scarce healthcare resources. We study preferences for investment in additional healthcare capacity and allocation between two regions, focusing on reducing waiting time for elective surgery for a physical health problem. We elicit preferences from a societal and an individual perspective, with unequal initial waiting times between the two regions. In an online survey, 1039 respondents were randomly assigned to one of three versions of the experiment: (1) a social planner perspective, placing respondents in the role of a policy maker; (2) an individual perspective where the respondent's own region was better off regarding initial waiting times; (3) an individual perspective where the individual's own region was worse off regarding initial waiting times. Respondents were asked to rank the status quo and five scenarios where the investment in additional capacity led to different distributions of shorter waiting times between regions. For all allocations we presented both the reduction in waiting time and the resulting final waiting time for both regions. We find that in version 1 of the experiment, preferences were in line with inequality aversion and Rawlsian preferences regarding final waiting time. In version 3, similar preferences were found, although here they also align with individualistic preferences. In version 2, preferences were more heterogeneous, with both individualistic and egalitarian preferences present. Concluding, individualistic and egalitarian preferences mostly concerned final waiting time. We therefore recommend policy makers to focus on the effect on final waiting time instead of the reduction of waiting time.

Can positional concerns be a threat to disaster management? Assessing the prevalence of positional concerns among socially vulnerable populations in Trinidad & Tobago

ABSTRACT Social vulnerability refers to the inability of some populations, organisations and societies to withstand adverse impacts from multiple stressors to which they are exposed, such as natural hazards. In this paper, we examine the existence of positional concerns (i.e. willingness to incur a loss so as to be above or not to be below others) in social vulnerability that may undermine the strategies and policies aiming at fostering the resilience of socially vulnerable populations. We found that the majority of people express egalitarian preferences, namely, they reject Pareto efficient allocations or gain improvements that benefit more to others than to them because they dislike inequalities. Our results showed that positional concerns are more often expressed than absolute concerns and suggest that policy makers, when tackling the problem of social vulnerability, should take into account citizens’ preferences. We suggest solutions to cope with the problem of positional concerns.

On the ambivalence of preferences for income redistribution: A research note

Increased income inequality, and policies that can limit its further growth, are an important issue for citizens, politicians and the media. Numerous empirical studies have measured political support for redistributive policies by asking whether the government should equalize gaps between rich and poor. They try to discover whether ‘redistributive’ policies are supported by public opinion and are therefore politically feasible. This research note argues that the standard instrument measures diffuse support for more equality, but gives rather vague hints if this support is transformed into a political mandate for redistributive programmes. With regard to the way in which the political demand for state redistribution to reduce income inequality has been raised so far, methodological critique and innovation is largely lacking. This article therefore tests the validity of the standard item. It argues that the conventional measurement only captures a general ‘inclination’ towards the idea of equality. However, since the item phrasing is unspecific, other orientations confound the answers, so that ultimately the predictive power in terms of political behaviour is low. The standard item measures egalitarian preferences with inconsistence. This limits its reliability, so that hardly any conclusions can be drawn regarding voting for left parties or support for redistributive programmes.

Other-Regarding Preferences and Redistributive Politics

Increasing inequality and associated egalitarian sentiments have again put redistribution on the political agenda. Support for redistribution may also be affected by altruistic and egalitarian preferences, but knowledge about the distribution of these preferences in the broader population and how they relate to political support for redistributive policies is still scarce. In this paper, we take advantage of Swiss direct democracy, where people voted several times in national plebiscites on strongly redistributive policies, to study the link between other-regarding preferences and support for redistribution in a broad sample of the Swiss population. Based on a recently developed non-parametric clustering procedure, we identify three disjunct groups of individuals with fundamentally different other-regarding preferences: (i) a large share of inequality averse people, (ii) a somewhat smaller yet still large share of people with an altruistic concern for social welfare and the worse off, and (iii) a considerable minority of primarily selfish individuals. Controlling for a large number of determinants of support for redistribution, we document that inequality aversion and altruistic concerns play an important role for redistributive voting that is particularly pronounced for above-median income earners. However, the role of these motives differs depending on the nature of redistributive proposals. Inequality aversion has large and robust effects in plebiscites that demand income reductions for the rich, while altruistic concerns play no significant role in these plebiscites.

Keeping up with the Joneses: Examining relative concerns in health related domains

People care about relative position and are willing to engage resources to be above others or at least not below them. Nevertheless, the scarce existing evidence suggests that health is a less positional good: people prefer to be healthy even if others are healthier than them. Unlike previous literature, we use a survey-based study to explore the positionality of several health-related dimensions (e.g., health care reimbursement, cosmetic surgery) in a Choice versus Happiness condition. We find that agents exhibit mainly egalitarian preferences, namely they take into account others' situations but prefer everybody to receive the same amount of health attributes. Moreover, when health attributes are related to physical appearance, agents express significantly higher levels of positional preferences. We draw several policy implications from these egalitarian preferences.

Preferences, trust, and performance in youth business groups.

We study how social preferences and norms of reciprocity are related to generalized (outgroup) and particularized (ingroup) trust among members of youth business groups in northern Ethiopia. The Ethiopian government promotes youth employment among land-poor rural youth by allocating them rehabilitated communal lands for the formation of sustainable businesses. The typical sustainable production activities that the groups can invest in include apiculture, forestry, horticulture, and livestock production. Our study used incentivized experiments to elicit social preferences, trust, and trustworthiness. We use data from 2427 group members in 246 functioning business groups collected in 2019. Altruistic and egalitarian preferences were associated with stronger norms to reciprocate, higher outgroup and ingroup trustworthiness and trust while spiteful and selfish preferences had opposite effects. The social preferences had both direct and indirect effects (through the norm to reciprocate) on trustworthiness and trust. Ingroup trust was positively correlated with a number of group performance indicators.

Material and relational asymmetry: The role of receivers’ wealth and power status in children’s resource allocation

Asymmetries in social status, specifically social status related to wealth and relational power, appear to influence the ways in which children allocate resources. However, the impact of wealth and relational power status on children’s resource allocation decisions has yet to be examined among children developing within a Chinese cultural context. In addition, how children weight the relative importance of these factors when they exist concurrently is not well understood. In Study 1, we examined the impact of recipients’ wealth and relational power status on Chinese children’s (3- to 8-year-olds; N = 199) allocation decisions. We found that across both categories of social status, 3- and 4-year-olds gave more to high-status individuals, whereas 7- and 8-year-olds gave more to low-status individuals, despite younger children also showing a strong egalitarian preference when the resources could be allocated equally. In Study 2, we investigated how children (3- to 8-year-olds; N = 219) weigh the relative importance of these two types of social status in situations where the level of recipients’ wealth and relational power were either consistent or in conflict. When they needed to allocate the resources unequally, the youngest children were found to place greater emphasis on wealth over relational power and favored the high-status individual, whereas older children tended to favor the low-status individual and placed greater importance on relational power over wealth. Overall, we found a consistent age-related shift from favoring high-status individuals toward compensating low-status individuals, suggesting a developing concern for social equity.

Uses of artificial and composite treatments in experimental methods: Reconsidering the problem of validity and its implications for stratification research

This paper promotes the incorporation of the expanding uses of experimental methods in stratification research and beyond. Social science experiments are usually criticized for their lack of external validity, especially their limited generalizability to real-life settings. We offer a critique of this concern by reaffirming the classical insight of experimental methodology that external validity should not be a key concern and focusing on some under-appreciated scientific payoffs to experimental control. We illustrate the opportunities for productive use of artificial and composite treatments in tandem to obtain three measures of inequality preference: generalized egalitarianism (derived from an incentivized behavioral game), acceptable merit-based economic differential (from a vignette experiment), and motivational value of income differentials (from a standard attitudinal item). This approach enables us to examine their roles in determining the perceived fairness of living standard given one’s effort—an outcome of much interest in subjective stratification research. The empirical results are based on a mobile phone survey of over 62,000 urban respondents, covering more than 330 of the largest cities in China. Using fixed-effects to control for locational unobservables, we show that perceived fairness is positively associated with tolerance of merit-based pay differential and, surprisingly, strict generalized egalitarian preference, but not with belief in income differentials as motivator for effort. Since the seemingly equivalent measures have very different predictive relationships with an individual’s perceived fairness, the results offer a cautionary tale of invalid interpretations that overlook the subtle nonequivalence among valid measurement strategies with differing degrees of realism.

Absolute Income, Income Inequality and the Subjective Well-Being of Migrant Workers in China: Toward an Understanding of the Relationship and Its Psychological Mechanisms

No study has been conducted linking Chinese migrants’ subjective well-being (SWB) with urban inequality. This paper presents the effects of income and inequality on their SWB using a total of 128,000 answers to a survey question about “happiness”. We find evidence for a satiation point above which higher income is no longer associated with greater well-being. Income inequality is detrimental to well-being. Migrants report lower SWB levels where income inequality is higher, even after controlling for personal income, a large set of individual characteristics, and province dummies. We also find striking differences across socio-economic and geographic groups. The positive effect of income is more pronounced for rural and western migrants, and is shown to be significantly correlated with the poor’s SWB but not for the well-being of more affluent respondents. Interestingly, high-income earners are more hurt by income inequality than low-income respondents. Moreover, compared with migrants in other regions, those in less developed Western China are found to be more averse to income inequality. Our results are quite robust to different specifications. We provide novel explanations for these findings by delving into psychological channels, including egalitarian preferences, social comparison concerns, expectations, perceived fairness concerns and perceived social mobility.

One step forward? Advances and setbacks on the path toward gender equality in families and work

AbstractMen and women increasingly express egalitarian preferences for organizing family life, but workplace norms and practices are still based on relatively traditional assumptions about the gender division of labor in families. In this article, we unpack this discordant feature of the cultural landscape with recent sociological research on gender, work, and family. We begin by discussing the growing body of evidence on preferences for gender–egalitarian relationships and specify how these egalitarian desires are incongruous with workplace norms and practices. Such a mismatch between desires and reality tends to produce negative personal and career outcomes, including work–family conflict, stress, and job and marital dissatisfaction. Then, we offer a critical review of the recent actions taken by some employers and policymakers to address this issue. We observe some progressive changes in both the public and private sector in regard to family leave policies, flexible work arrangements, childcare support, and fertility benefits, but these policy initiatives still fall short of supporting gender–egalitarian arrangements for working families. We conclude with a discussion of how researchers could better evaluate and increase the effectiveness of workplace initiatives.

‘Cold intimacies’ in parents’ negotiations of work–family practices and parental leave?

This article aims to assess the contention that a ‘feminist’ ideology is associated with a ‘cooling’ of intimacy in heterosexual relationships, as argued by scholars such as Arlie Hochschild and Eva Illouz. According to this thesis, such an ideology, ‘abducted’ by a commercial spirit, encourages women to disengage from warm intimate bonds with others and to prioritize their own personal fulfilment and parity in care and housework. Drawing on two qualitative empirical studies exploring couples’ intimate lives and their feminist and egalitarian preferences and practices in leave, care and housework, this article examines in detail the basis of this thesis, and its effectiveness in explaining the lived experiences of parent couples’ negotiations of this terrain. The data were collected through focus group discussions with parents not sharing leave and a detailed ethnography with couples sharing leave. The comparison shows that, far from observing a clear dichotomy between ‘cold’ feminists and ‘warm’ traditional couples, both sets of parents present a more complex picture of ‘warm’ and ‘cold’ relations. The analysis enables a critical appreciation of sociological theorizing about gender equality and intimacy, contributing to sociological debates around individualism, feminism and family life.

Can gender differences in distributional preferences explain gender gaps in competition?

We design a lab experiment to specifically examine whether a preference for favorable inequality and behindness aversion, as well as egalitarian preferences, affect competitive choices differently among males and females. Using data on approximately 2,000 subjects, we find that selection into competitive environments is negatively related to egalitarian preferences, with smaller negative impacts of being egalitarian on females’ choice to compete. Further, behindness aversion and preference for favorable inequality affect willingness to compete in opposite ways. The willingness to compete is negatively affected by behindness aversion, while a preference for favorable inequality positively influences willingness to compete. Interestingly, when we disaggregate behavior along gender lines, we find that compared to behindness averse males, behindness averse females are more likely to enter the competitive environment. In contrast, there is no significant gender difference in the impact of preference for favorable inequality on competition. Our results suggest that the observed gender difference in competitiveness can stem from male-female differences in distributional preferences and selected personality traits developed during one’s lifetime.

The (ir)relevance of unemployment for labour market policy attitudes and welfare state attitudes

AbstractTypically, associations between being unemployed and policy attitudes are explained with reference to economic self‐interest considerations of the unemployed. Preferences for labour market policies (LMP) and egalitarian preferences are the prime example and the focus of this study. Its aim is to challenge this causal self‐interest argument: self‐interest consistent associations of unemployment with policy preferences are neither necessarily driven by self‐interest nor necessarily causal. To that end, this article first confronts the self‐interest argument with a broader perspective on attitudes. Given that predispositions (e.g., value orientations) are stable and influence more specific policy attitudes, it is at least questionable whether people change their policy attitudes simply because they get laid off. Second, the article derives a non‐causal argument behind associations between unemployment and policy attitudes, arguing that these might be spurious associations driven by individuals’ socioeconomic background. After all, the entire socioeconomic background of a person is simultaneously related to both the risk of getting unemployed (‘selection into unemployment’) and distinct political socialisation experiences from early childhood onwards. Third, this article uses methods inspired by a counterfactual account on causality to test the non‐causal claims. Analyses are carried out using the fourth wave of the European Social Survey and applying entropy balancing to control for selection bias. In only two of the 31 analysed countries do unemployment effects on egalitarian orientations remain significant after controlling for selection bias. The same holds for effects on active LMP attitudes with the exception of six countries. Attitudes towards passive LMP are to some degree an exception since effects remain in a third of the countries. Robustness checks and Bayes factor replications showing evidence for the absence of unemployment effects support the general impression from these initial analyses. After discussing this article's results and limitations, its broader implications are considered. On the one hand, the article offers a new perspective on the conceptualisation and measurement of unemployment risk. On the other hand, its theoretical argument, as well as its treatment of the resulting selection bias, can be broadly applied. Thus, this article can contribute to many other research questions regarding the (ir)relevance of individual life events for political attitudes and political behaviour.

Income Inequality and Subjective Well-Being: Toward an Understanding of the Relationship and Its Mechanisms

Income inequality is emerging as the socioeconomic topic of our era. Yet there is no clear conclusion as to how income inequality affects the most comprehensive human outcome measure, subjective well-being (SWB). This study provides an explanation for the relationship between income inequality and SWB, by delving into its mechanisms, including egalitarian preferences, perceived fairness, social comparison concerns, as well as perceived social mobility. In a rigorous analysis using a large cross-country dataset, and accounting for the nested structure of the data, as well as controlling for a variety of individual and country characteristics, we find that SWB is higher where income inequality is higher. Importantly, we also find support for this relationship being moderated by perceptions of poverty being caused by unfairness, an individual’s relative socioeconomic standing, as well as beliefs about hard work leading to success. Our study highlights the dire need for further scholarly attention to income inequality and its complex effects on SWB.

Optimal Taxation of Opportunity Inputs

This paper studies the optimal taxation for opportunity inputs, such as education. In a model of parental investment and social preferences that might value equal opportunity, I use budget-neutral tax reforms to find the optimal tax scheme as a function of policy elasticities and income effects. Later, the model is expanded to introduce parental and child heterogeneity, externalities, and egalitarian concerns for adult welfare. Simulations, using data on education funding, suggest that egalitarian preferences induce significant redistribution of opportunity inputs. Under the optimal tax scheme, the vast majority of households would rely solely on public funding of education, which is in line with the patterns observed in most countries and, interestingly, is a result that is robust to the presence of heterogeneity or externalities.

Are egalitarian preferences based on envy?

We investigated whether preferences for living in a society with equal (or unequal) incomes were related to individual differences in how envious people were. Four studies measured dispositional envy with a scale developed by Smith et al. (1999). The first study showed that dispositional envy correlated quite strongly with individual's ratings of how much they would envy another's success for a number of different objects of envy. Studies 2, 3 and 4 found little correlation between dispositional envy and rated preferences for living in a society with more equal incomes for five scenarios which were predicted to be productive of envy for samples of New Zealand students, East German students, and New Zealand general public respectively. Study 3 also found a similar result for an experiment in which distribution decisions implied corresponding money transfers to the participants. Overall, the four studies indicate that individual differences in envy are only weak predictors of preferences for egalitarian income distributions.

Dworkin’s Paradox

How to distribute welfare in a society is a key issue in the subject of distributional justice, which is deeply involved with notions of fairness. Following a thought experiment by Dworkin, this work considers a society of individuals with different preferences on the welfare distribution and an official to mediate the coordination among them. Based on a simple assumption that an individual’s welfare is proportional to how her preference is fulfilled by the actual distribution, we show that an egalitarian preference is a strict Nash equilibrium and can be favorable even in certain inhomogeneous situations. These suggest how communication can encourage and secure a notion of fairness.