Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7bb4899584-j8xrj Total loading time: 0.255 Render date: 2023-01-27T02:39:31.605Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

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
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

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.

Type
Research Article
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, A. and La Ferrara, E.. 2005. “Preferences for Redistribution in the Land of Opportunities.” Journal of Public Economics 89: 897931.CrossRefGoogle 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. 93132). North Holland: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babcock, L. and Loewenstein, G.. 1997. “Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self Serving Biases.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11:109126.CrossRefGoogle 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): 11551189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, A., Burns, J., Miller, L., and Shaw, I.. 2015. “Economic Status and Acknowledgement of Earned Entitlement.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 118: 5568.Google Scholar
Barr, A., Miller, L., and Úbeda, P.. 2016. “Moral Consequences of Becoming Unemployed.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (17): 46764681.Google ScholarPubMed
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): 289300.CrossRefGoogle 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): 1526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, A. 2008. “Party Polarization and Citizen's Left Right Orientations.” Party Politics 14 (2): 189209.CrossRefGoogle 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): 854874.CrossRefGoogle 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: 8198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margalit, Y. 2013. “Explaining Social Policy Preferences: Evidence from the Great Recession.” American Political Science Review 107 (01): 80103.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.CrossRefGoogle 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): 8192.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, W. 2011. “Testing for Measurement Equivalence of Individuals’ Left-Right Orientation.” Survey Research Methods 5 (1): 110.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Demel et al. Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: File

Demel et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Demel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 156 KB
6
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article 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.

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

Save article to Dropbox

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

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

Save article to Google Drive

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

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *