Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T10:32:47.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Empirical Research on Ethical Preferences: How Popular is Prioritarianism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2022

By
Erik Schokkaert  and
Benoît Tarroux
Edited by
Matthew D. Adler  and
Ole F. Norheim
Matthew D. Adler
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Ole F. Norheim
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
Get access

Summary

We survey the empirical literature on ethical preferences, covering both survey studies and incentivized laboratory experiments. Crucial axioms such as the Pigou-Dalton transfer principle are not accepted by a large fraction of the subjects. Moreover, in formulating their distributive preferences, subjects attach much importance to the sources of income differences. Their preferences behind a veil of ignorance do not coincide with their preferences in the position of a social planner. These results suggest that prioritarian policy proposals will not necessarily be supported by a majority of the population. Although the majority opinion does not necessarily reflect the ethically desirable perspective, the empirical results still raise some interesting normative challenges

Keywords

surveyslab experimentsdistributive preferencesprioritarianisminequality
Type
Chapter
Information
Prioritarianism in Practice , pp. 459 - 517
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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.)

References

Abasolo, I. and Tsuchiya, A. (2004). “Exploring social welfare functions and violations of monotonicity: an example from inequalities in health.” Journal of Health Economics, 23: 313–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abasolo, I. and Tsuchiya, A. (2013) “Is more health always better for society? Exploring public preferences that violate monotonicity.” Theory and Decision, 74: 539–563.Google Scholar
Aguiar, F., Becker, A. and Miller, L. (2013). “Whose impartiality? An experimental study of veiled stakeholders, involved spectators and detached observers.” Economics and Philosophy, 29: 155–174.Google Scholar
Akbas, M., Ariely, D. and Yuksel, S. (2019). “When is inequality fair? An experiment on the effect of procedural justice and agency.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 161: 114–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, A. and Angeletos, G.-M. (2005). “Fairness and redistribution.” American Economic Review, 95: 960–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, A. and Giuliano, P. (2011). “Preferences for redistribution.” In Benhabib, J., Bisin, A. and Jackson, M., eds., Handbook of Social Economics, Vol. 1A. New York: Elsevier, pp. 93–131.Google Scholar
Alesina, A., Stantcheva, S. and Teso, E. (2018). “Intergenerational mobility and support for redistribution.” American Economic Review, 108: 521–554.Google Scholar
Almas, I., Cappelen, A.W., Sorensen, E., and Tungodden, B. (2010). “Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance.” Science, 328: 1176–1178.Google Scholar
Almas, I., Cappelen, A.W. and Tungodden, B. (2020). “Cutthroat capitalism versus cuddly socialism: Are Americans more meritocratic and efficiency-seeking than Scandinavians?” Journal of Political Economy, 128: 1753–1788.Google Scholar
Amiel, Y. and Cowell, F. (1994). “Monotonicity, dominance and the Pareto principle.” Economics Letters, 45: 447–450.Google Scholar
Amiel, Y. and Cowell, F. (1999). Thinking about Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Amiel, Y., Cowell, F. and Gaertner, W. (2009). “To be or not to be involved: a questionnaire-experimental view on Harsanyi’s utilitarian ethics.” Social Choice and Welfare, 32: 253–274.Google Scholar
Amiel, Y., Creedy, J. and Hurn, D. (1999). “Attitudes towards inequality.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 101: 83–96.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., Aydin, D., Barton, B., Bernheim, B.D., and Naecker, J. (2020). “When fair isn’t fair: Understanding choice reversals involving social preferences.” Journal of Political Economy, 128: 1673–1711.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. and Miller, J. (2002). “Giving according to garp: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism.” Econometrica, 70: 737–753.Google Scholar
Balafoutas, L., Kocher, M.G., Putterman, L. and Sutter, M. (2013). “Equality, equity and incentives: an experiment.” European Economic Review, 60: 32–51.Google Scholar
Ballano, C. and Ruiz-Castillo, J. (1993). “Searching by questionnaire for the meaning of income inequality.” Revista Espanola de Economia, 10: 233–259.Google Scholar
Becker, A. and Miller, L.M. (2009). “Promoting justice by treating people unequally: an experimental study.” Experimental Economics, 12: 437–449.Google Scholar
Beckman, S.R., Formby, J.P., Smith, W.J. and Zheng, B. (2002). “Envy, malice and pareto efficiency: an experimental examination.” Social Choice and Welfare, 19: 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bénabou, R. and Ok, E. (2001). “Social mobility and the demand for redistribution: the POUM hypothesis.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116: 447–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bénabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2006). “Belief in a just world and redistributive politics.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121: 699–746.Google Scholar
Bernasconi, M. (2002). “How should income be divided? Questionnaire evidence from the theory of “ impartial preferences.” Journal of Economics Supplement, 9: 163–195.Google Scholar
Bleichrodt, H., Rohde, K. and Van Ourti, T. (2012). “An experimental test of the concentration index.” Journal of Health Economics, 31: 86–98.Google Scholar
Bosmans, K. and Schokkaert, E. (2004). “Social welfare, the veil of ignorance and purely individual risk: an empirical examination.” Research on Economic Inequality, 11: 85–114.Google Scholar
Cappelen, A.W., Hole, A.D., Sorensen, E. and Tungodden, B. (2007). “The pluralism of fairness ideals: an experimental approach.” American Economic Review, 97: 818–827.Google Scholar
Cappelen, A.W., Konow, J., Sorensen, E. and Tungodden, B. (2013). “Just luck: An experimental study of risk-taking and fairness.” American Economic Review, 103: 1398–1413.Google Scholar
Cappelen, A.W., Sorensen, E. and Tungodden, B. (2010). “Responsibility for what? Fairness and individual responsibility.” European Economic Review, 54: 429–441.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F., Daruvala, D. and Johansson-Stenman, O. (2005). “Are people inequality averse or just risk averse?” Economica, 72: 375–396.Google Scholar
Cettolin, E. and Riedl, A. (2016). “Justice under uncertainty.” Management Science, 63: 3739–3759.Google Scholar
Charité, J., Fisman, R. and Kuziemko, I. (2015). “Reference points and redistributive preferences: Experimental evidence.” NBER Working Paper No. 21009.Google Scholar
Charness, G. and Rabin, M. (2002). “Understanding social preferences with simple tests.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117: 817–869.Google Scholar
Clark, A. and d’Ambrosio, C. (2015). “Attitudes to income inequality: experimental and survey evidence.” In Atkinson, A. and Bourguignon, F., eds., Handbook of Income Distribution, Vol. 2A. New York: Elsevier, pp. 1147–1208.Google Scholar
Cookson, R., Ali, S., Tsuchiya, A. and Asaria, M. (2018). “E-learning and health inequality aversion: a questionnaire experiment.” Health Economics, 27: 754–1771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, D. and Kagel, J.H. (2015). “Other-regarding preferences: A selective survey of experimental results.” In Kagel, J. H. and Roth, A. E., eds., Handbook of Experimental Economics, Vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 217–289.Google Scholar
Costa-Font, J. and Cowell, F. (2019). “Incorporating inequality aversion in health-care priority setting.” Social Justice Research, 32: 172–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruces, G., Perez-Truglia, R. and Tetaz, M. (2013). “Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: evidence from a survey experiment.” Journal of Public Economics, 98: 100–112.Google Scholar
Dickinson, D.L. and Tiefenthaler, J. (2002). “What Is Fair? Experimental Evidence.” Southern Economic Journal, 69: 414–428.Google Scholar
Dolan, P. and Tsuchiya, A. (2011). “Determining the parameters in a social welfare function using stated preference data: an application to health.” Applied Economics, 43: 2241–2250.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: 1059–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edlin, R., Tsuchiya, A. and Dolan, P. (2012). “Public preferences for responsibility versus public preferences for reducing inequalities.” Health Economics, 21: 1416–1426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelmann, D. and Strobel, M. (2004). “Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments.” American Economic Review, 94: 857–869.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., Naef, M. and Schmidt, K.M. (2006). “Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: comment.” American Economic Review, 96: 1912–1917.Google Scholar
Fisman, R., Kariv, S. and Markovits, D. (2007). “Individual preferences for giving.” American Economic Review, 97: 1858–1876.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F. (2018). “Optimal income taxation theory and principles of fairness.” Journal of Economic Literature, 56: 1029–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F. (2011). A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fong, C. (2001). “Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution.” Journal of Public Economics, 82: 225–246.Google Scholar
Frignani, N. and Ponti, G. (2012). “Risk versus social preferences under the veil of ignorance.” Economics Letters, 116: 143–146.Google Scholar
Frohlich, N. and Oppenheimer, J.A. (1990). “Choosing justice in experimental democracies with production.” American Political Science Review, 84: 461–477.Google Scholar
Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J.A., and Eavey, C.L. (1987a). “Choices of principles of distributive justice in experimental groups.” American Journal of Political Science, 31: 606–636.Google Scholar
Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J.A., and Eavey, C.L. (1987b). “Laboratory results on Rawls’s distributive justice.” British Journal of Political Science, 17: 1–21.Google Scholar
Gaertner, W. and Schokkaert, E. (2012). Empirical social choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giuliano, P. and Spilimbergo, A. (2014). “Growing up in a recession.” Review of Economic Studies, 81: 787–817.Google Scholar
Glejser, H., Gevers, L., Lambot, P. and Morales, J. (1977). “An econometric study of the variables determining inequality aversion among students.” European Economic Review, 10: 173–188.Google Scholar
Güth, W. and Kliemt, H. (2010). “What ethics can learn from experimental economics - if anything.” European Journal of Political Economy, 26: 302–310.Google Scholar
Harrison, E. and Seidl, C. (1994). “Acceptance of distributional axioms: experimental findings.” In Eichhorn, W., ed., Models and measurement of welfare and inequality. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 67–99.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. (1953). “Cardinal utility in welfare economics and the theory of risk-taking.” Journal of Political Economy, 61: 434–435.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. (1955). “Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics and interpersonal comparisons of utility.” Journal of Political Economy, 63: 309–321.Google Scholar
Hausman, D. (2015). Valuing Health: Well-being, Freedom, and Suffering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herne, K. and Suojanen, M. (2004). “The role of information in choices over income distributions.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48: 173–193.Google Scholar
Heufer, J., Shachat, J. and Xu, Y. (2018). “Measuring tastes for equity and aggregate wealth behind the veil of ignorance.” Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, TI 2018-087/I.Google Scholar
Hong, H., Ding, J. and Yao, Y. (2015). “Individual social welfare preferences: an experimental study.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 57: 89–97.Google Scholar
Isaksson, A.-S. and Lindskog, A. (2009). “Preferences for redistribution – a country comparison of fairness judgements.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 72: 884–902.Google Scholar
Jancewicz, B. (2016). “Income inequalities: axioms of income inequality measures and people’s perceptions.” Decyzje, 5: 21–42.Google Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O., Carlsson, F. and Daruvala, D. (2002). “Measuring future grandparents’ preferences for equality and relative standing.” Economic Journal, 112: 363–383.Google Scholar
Konow, J. (2000). “Fair shares: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions.” American Economic Review, 90: 1072–1091.Google Scholar
Konow, J. (2001). “Fair and square: the four sides of distributive justice.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 46: 137–164.Google Scholar
Konow, J. (2003). “Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories.” Journal of Economic Literature, 41: 1188–1239.Google Scholar
Kuhn, A. (2013). “Inequality perceptions, distributional norms, and redistributive preferences in East and West Germany.” German Economic Review, 14: 483–499.Google Scholar
Kuziemko, I., Norton, M., Saez, E. and Stantcheva, S. (2015). “How elastic are preferences for redistribution? Evidence from randomized survey experiments.” American Economic Review, 105: 1478–1508.Google Scholar
Lal, A., Mohebi, M., Sweeney, R., Moodie, M., Peeters, A. and Carter, R. (2019). “Equity weights for socioeconomic position: two methods – survey of stated preferences and epidemiological data.” Value in Health, 22: 247–253.Google Scholar
Leibler, J., Zwack, L. and Levy, J. (2009). “Agreement with inequality axioms and perceptions of inequality among environmental justice and risk assessment professionals.” Health, Risk & Society, 11: 55–69.Google Scholar
Luce, R. and Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Luttmer, E. and Singhal, M. (2011). “Culture, context, and the taste for redistribution.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3: 157–179.Google Scholar
McClelland, G. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1978). “Who accepts the Pareto axiom? The role of utility and equity in arbitration decisions.” Behavioral Science, 23: 446–456.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1992). “Distributive justice: what the people think.” Ethics, 102: 555–593.Google Scholar
Mollerstrom, J., Reme, B.-A. and Sorensen, E. (2015). “Luck, choice and responsibility. An experimental study of fairness views.” Journal of Public Economics, 131: 33–40.Google Scholar
Muller, D. and Renes, S. (2021). “Fairness views and political preferences: evidence from a large and heterogeneous sample.” Social Choice and Welfare, 56: 679-711.Google Scholar
Nord, E. (1995). “The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs.” Medical Decision Making, 15: 201–208.Google Scholar
Ottersen, T., Maestad, O. and Norheim, O. (2014). “Lifetime QALY prioritarianism in priority setting: quantification of the inherent trade-off.” Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinto-Prades, J.-L. and Abellán-Perpiñán, (2005). “Measuring the health of populations: the veil of ignorance approach.” Health Economics, 14: 69–82.Google Scholar
Pirttilä, J. and Uusitalo, R. (2010). “A ‘leaky bucket’ in the real world: estimating inequality aversion using survey data.” Economica, 77: 60–76.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1958). “Justice as fairness.” Philosophical Review, 67: 164–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Robson, M., Asaria, M., Cookson, R., Tsuchiya, A. and Ali, S. (2017). “Eliciting the level of health inequality aversion in England.” Health Economics, 26: 1328–1334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roemer, J. (1996). Theories of Distributive Justice. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, I.M. and Rohde, K.I. (2015). “Managing social risks – tradeoffs between risks and inequalities.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51: 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saez, E. and Stantcheva, S. (2013). “Generalized social marginal welfare weights for optimal tax theory.” NBER: Working Paper 18835.Google Scholar
Schildberg-Hörisch, H. (2010). “Is the veil of ignorance only a concept about risk? An experiment.” Journal of Public Economics, 94: 1062–1066.Google Scholar
Schokkaert, E. and Truyts, T. (2017). “Preferences for redistribution and social structure.” Social Choice and Welfare, 49: 545–576.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (2009).The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Tarroux, B. (2015). “Comparing two-dimensional distributions: a questionnaire-experimental approach.” Social Choice and Welfare, 44: 87–108.Google Scholar
Tarroux, B. (2019). “The value of tax progressivity: evidence from survey experiments.” Journal of Public Economics, 179: Article 104068.Google Scholar
Traub, S., Seidl, C. and Schmidt, U. (2009). “An experimental study on individual choice, social welfare, and social preferences.” European Economic Review, 53: 385–400.Google Scholar
Traub, S., Seidl, C., Schmidt, U., and Levati, M.V. (2005). “Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding – or somebody else? An experimental investigation of distributive justice.” Social Choice and Welfare, 24: 283–309.Google Scholar
Weinzierl, M. (2014). “The promise of positive optimal taxation: normative diversity and a role of equal sacrifice.” Journal of Public Economics, 118: 128–142.Google Scholar
Weinzierl, M. (2017a). “Popular acceptance of inequality due to innate brute luck and support for classical benefit-based taxation.” Journal of Public Economics, 155: 54–63.Google Scholar
Weinzierl, M. (2017b). “A welfarist role for nonwelfarist rules: an example with envy.” Harvard Business School: Working Paper 17-021.Google Scholar
Yaari, M. and Bar-Hillel, M. (1984). “On dividing justly.” Social Choice and Welfare, 1: 1–24.Google Scholar
Yamamura, E. (2015). “Effects of siblings and birth order on income redistribution preferences: evidence based on Japanese General Social Survey.” Social Indicators Research, 121: 589–606.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×