Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:33:09.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commitment to Political Ideology is a Luxury Only Students Can Afford: A Distributive Justice Experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2018

Simona Demel ,
Abigail Barr ,
Luis Miller  and
Paloma Ubeda
Simona Demel
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, University Road, Belfast, BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, UK, e-mail: simona.demel@gmail.com
Abigail Barr
Affiliation:
School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Room B44, Sir Clive Granger Building, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK, e-mail: Abigail.Barr@nottingham.ac.uk
Luis Miller
Affiliation:
School of Economics and Business, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Av. Lehendakari Aguirre 83 48015, Bilbao, Spain, e-mail: luismiguel.miller@ehu.eus
Paloma Ubeda
Affiliation:
Departamento de Economía Aplicada y Estadística, UNED (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia), Madrid, Spain, e-mail: paloma.ubeda@cee.uned.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using a political-frame-free, lab-in-the-field experiment, we investigate the associations between employment status, self-reported political ideology, and preferences for redistribution. The experiment consists of a real-effort task, followed by a four-player dictator game. In one treatment, dictator game initial endowments depend on participants’ performance in the real-effort task, i.e., they are earned, in the other, they are randomly determined. We find that being employed or unemployed is associated with revealed redistributive preferences, while the political ideology of the employed and unemployed is not. In contrast, the revealed redistributive preferences of students are strongly associated with their political ideologies. The employed and right-leaning students redistribute earnings less than windfalls, the unemployed, and left-leaning students make no such distinction.

Keywords

Economic statuslab-in-the-field experimentsleft–right scaleredistribution
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Spring 2019 , pp. 33 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network, at: doi:10.7910/DVN/OQFMB6. A. Barr acknowledges support from the Economic and Social Research Council via the Network for Integrated Behavioural Sciences (Award No. ES/K002201/1). L. Miller acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Grant ECO2015-67105-R) and the Basque Government (research group IT-783-13). The authors declare no conflicts of interest pertaining to the publication of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Alesina, A. and Glaeser, E. L.. 2004. Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alesina, A. and La Ferrara, E.. 2005. “Preferences for Redistribution in the Land of Opportunities.” Journal of Public Economics 89: 897–931.Google Scholar
Alesina, A. and Giuliano, P.. 2011. “Preferences for Redistribution.” In Benhabib, J., Bisin, A., and Jackson, M. O. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Economics (pp. 93–132). North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Babcock, L. and Loewenstein, G.. 1997. “Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self Serving Biases.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11:109–126.Google Scholar
Barber, B. IV., Beramendi, P., and Wibbels, E.. 2013. “The Behavioral Foundations of Social Politics: Evidence from Surveys and a Laboratory Democracy.” Comparative Political Studies 46 (10): 1155–1189.Google Scholar
Barr, A., Burns, J., Miller, L., and Shaw, I.. 2015. “Economic Status and Acknowledgement of Earned Entitlement.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 118: 55–68.Google Scholar
Barr, A., Miller, L., and Úbeda, P.. 2016. “Moral Consequences of Becoming Unemployed.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (17): 4676–4681.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y.. 1995. “Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 57 (1): 289–300.Google Scholar
Brown‐Iannuzzi, J. L., Lundberg, K. B., Kay, A. C., and Payne, B. K.. 2015. “Subjective Status Shapes Political Preferences.” Psychological Science 26 (1): 15–26.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. C., Gelbach, J. B., and Miller, D. L.. 2008. “Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 90 (3): 414–27.Google Scholar
Cavaillé, C. and Trump, K.-S.. 2015. “The Two Facets of Social Policy Preferences.” Journal of Politics 77 (1): 146–60.Google Scholar
Durante, R., Putterman, L., and van der Weele, J.. 2014. “Preferences for Redistribution and Perception of Fairness: An Experimental Study.” Journal of the European Economic Association 12 (4): 1059–86.Google Scholar
Esarey, J., Salmon, T. C., and Barrilleaux, C.. 2012. “What Motivates Political Preferences? Self‐Interest, Ideology, and Fairness in a Laboratory Democracy.” Economic Inquiry 50 (3): 604–24.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fong, C. 2001. “Social Preferences, Self-Interest, and the Demand for Redistribution.” Journal of Public Economics 82: 225–46.Google Scholar
Freire, A. 2008. “Party Polarization and Citizen's Left Right Orientations.” Party Politics 14 (2): 189–209.Google Scholar
Hårsman, B. and Quigley, J. M.. 2010. “Political and Public Acceptability of Congestion Pricing: Ideology and Self‐Interest.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 29 (4): 854–874.Google Scholar
Jaime-Castillo, A. M. and Sáez-Lozano, J. L.. 2016. “Preferences for Tax Schemes in OECD Countries, Self-Interest and Ideology.” International Political Science Review 37: 81–98.Google Scholar
Margalit, Y. 2013. “Explaining Social Policy Preferences: Evidence from the Great Recession.” American Political Science Review 107 (01): 80–103.Google Scholar
Morton, R. B. and Williams, K. C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Naumann, E., Buss, C., and Bähr, J.. 2016. “How Unemployment Experience Affects Support for the Welfare State: A Real Panel Approach.” European Sociological Review 32 (1): 81–92.Google Scholar
Owens, L. A. and Pedulla, D. S.. 2014. “Material Welfare and Changing Political Preferences: The Case of Support for Redistributive Social Policies.” Social Forces 92 (3): 1087–113.Google Scholar
Weber, W. 2011. “Testing for Measurement Equivalence of Individuals’ Left-Right Orientation.” Survey Research Methods 5 (1): 1–10.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Demel et al. Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OQFMB6
Link
Supplementary material: File

Demel et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Demel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 155.9 KB