Cargando…
Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game
Political polarization and extremism are widely thought to be driven by the surge in economic inequality in many countries around the world. Understanding why inequality persists depends on knowing the causal effect of inequality on individual behavior. We study how inequality affects redistribution...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
National Academy of Sciences
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5889654/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29555734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720457115 |
_version_ | 1783312739507109888 |
---|---|
author | Bechtel, Michael M. Liesch, Roman Scheve, Kenneth F. |
author_facet | Bechtel, Michael M. Liesch, Roman Scheve, Kenneth F. |
author_sort | Bechtel, Michael M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Political polarization and extremism are widely thought to be driven by the surge in economic inequality in many countries around the world. Understanding why inequality persists depends on knowing the causal effect of inequality on individual behavior. We study how inequality affects redistribution behavior in a randomized “give-or-take” experiment that created equality, advantageous inequality, or disadvantageous inequality between two individuals before offering one of them the opportunity to either take from or give to the other. We estimate the causal effect of inequality in representative samples of German and American citizens (n = 4,966) and establish two main findings. First, individuals imperfectly equalize payoffs: On average, respondents transfer 12% of the available endowments to realize more equal wealth distributions. This means that respondents tolerate a considerable degree of inequality even in a setting in which there are no costs to redistribution. Second, redistribution behavior in response to disadvantageous and advantageous inequality is largely asymmetric: Individuals who take from those who are richer do not also tend to give to those who are poorer, and individuals who give to those who are poorer do not tend to take from those who are richer. These behavioral redistribution types correlate in meaningful ways with support for heavy taxes on the rich and the provision of welfare benefits for the poor. Consequently, it seems difficult to construct a majority coalition willing to back the type of government interventions needed to counter rising inequality. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5889654 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | National Academy of Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58896542018-04-09 Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game Bechtel, Michael M. Liesch, Roman Scheve, Kenneth F. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Social Sciences Political polarization and extremism are widely thought to be driven by the surge in economic inequality in many countries around the world. Understanding why inequality persists depends on knowing the causal effect of inequality on individual behavior. We study how inequality affects redistribution behavior in a randomized “give-or-take” experiment that created equality, advantageous inequality, or disadvantageous inequality between two individuals before offering one of them the opportunity to either take from or give to the other. We estimate the causal effect of inequality in representative samples of German and American citizens (n = 4,966) and establish two main findings. First, individuals imperfectly equalize payoffs: On average, respondents transfer 12% of the available endowments to realize more equal wealth distributions. This means that respondents tolerate a considerable degree of inequality even in a setting in which there are no costs to redistribution. Second, redistribution behavior in response to disadvantageous and advantageous inequality is largely asymmetric: Individuals who take from those who are richer do not also tend to give to those who are poorer, and individuals who give to those who are poorer do not tend to take from those who are richer. These behavioral redistribution types correlate in meaningful ways with support for heavy taxes on the rich and the provision of welfare benefits for the poor. Consequently, it seems difficult to construct a majority coalition willing to back the type of government interventions needed to counter rising inequality. National Academy of Sciences 2018-04-03 2018-03-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5889654/ /pubmed/29555734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720457115 Text en Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by PNAS. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Social Sciences Bechtel, Michael M. Liesch, Roman Scheve, Kenneth F. Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game |
title | Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game |
title_full | Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game |
title_fullStr | Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game |
title_full_unstemmed | Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game |
title_short | Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game |
title_sort | inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game |
topic | Social Sciences |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5889654/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29555734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720457115 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bechtelmichaelm inequalityandredistributionbehaviorinagiveortakegame AT lieschroman inequalityandredistributionbehaviorinagiveortakegame AT schevekennethf inequalityandredistributionbehaviorinagiveortakegame |