IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/poleco/v74y2022ics0176268021001397.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies

Author

Listed:
  • Barton, Jared
  • Pan, Xiaofei

Abstract

We use a nationwide survey experiment in the United States to measure whether information on intergenerational economic mobility or policy-specific arguments influence support for six pro-mobility policies advocated by political entrepreneurs. We find the information treatments do not affect support, but the argument treatments significantly increase support for three of the policies. We also include a behavioral measure by allowing respondents the opportunity to write their U.S. Senators. We find argument treatments significantly increase the likelihood that letters address economic mobility and significantly promote advocacy for that policy in the letter, but no increase in advocacy from the information treatments. Our results persist after controlling for a variety of robustness measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:poleco:v:74:y:2022:i:c:s0176268021001397
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2021.102172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268021001397
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2021.102172?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cooper, Kerris & Stewart, Kitty, 2017. "Does Money Affect Children’s Outcomes? An update," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103494, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:297-304 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Roland Benabou & Efe A. Ok, 2001. "Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(2), pages 447-487.
    4. Timothy J. Bartik, 2014. "From Preschool to Prosperity: The Economic Payoff to Early Childhood Education," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number fptp, November.
    5. Mounir Karadja & Johanna Mollerstrom & David Seim, 2017. "Richer (and Holier) Than Thou? The Effect of Relative Income Improvements on Demand for Redistribution," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(2), pages 201-212, May.
    6. Martinangeli, Andrea F.M. & Windsteiger, Lisa, 2023. "Immigration vs. poverty: Causal impact on demand for redistribution in a survey experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    7. Randall K. Q. Akee & William E. Copeland & Gordon Keeler & Adrian Angold & E. Jane Costello, 2010. "Parents' Incomes and Children's Outcomes: A Quasi-experiment Using Transfer Payments from Casino Profits," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 86-115, January.
    8. Gerber, Alan S. & Gimpel, James G. & Green, Donald P. & Shaw, Daron R., 2011. "How Large and Long-lasting Are the Persuasive Effects of Televised Campaign Ads? Results from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 135-150, February.
    9. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez & Gabriel Zucman, 2018. "Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(2), pages 553-609.
    10. Vladimir Gimpelson & Daniel Treisman, 2018. "Misperceiving inequality," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 27-54, March.
    11. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    12. Gerber, Alan S. & Huber, Gregory A. & Washington, Ebonya, 2010. "Party Affiliation, Partisanship, and Political Beliefs: A Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(4), pages 720-744, November.
    13. Alberto Alesina & Stefanie Stantcheva & Edoardo Teso, 2018. "Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 521-554, February.
    14. Raj Chetty & Nathaniel Hendren & Patrick Kline & Emmanuel Saez, 2014. "Where is the land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(4), pages 1553-1623.
    15. Di Tella, Rafael & Galiani, Sebastian & Schargrodsky, Ernesto, 2012. "Reality versus propaganda in the formation of beliefs about privatization," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 553-567.
    16. Cruces, Guillermo & Perez-Truglia, Ricardo & Tetaz, Martin, 2013. "Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 100-112.
    17. Nickerson, David W., 2008. "Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 49-57, February.
    18. Vivekinan Ashok & Ilyana Kuziemko & Ebonya Washington, 2015. "Support for Redistribution in an Age of Rising Inequality: New Stylized Facts and Some Tentative Explanations," NBER Working Papers 21529, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Alesina, Alberto & La Ferrara, Eliana, 2005. "Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 897-931, June.
    20. Thomas Piketty, 1995. "Social Mobility and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 551-584.
    21. Jonathan de Quidt & Johannes Haushofer & Christopher Roth, 2018. "Measuring and Bounding Experimenter Demand," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(11), pages 3266-3302, November.
    22. Meltzer, Allan H & Richard, Scott F, 1981. "A Rational Theory of the Size of Government," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 914-927, October.
    23. McCloskey, Donald N, 1983. "The Rhetoric of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 481-517, June.
    24. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:305-308 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Lisa Windsteiger, 2019. "Immigration vs. Poverty: Causal Impact on Demand for Redistribution in a Survey Experiment," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2019-13, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    26. George A. Akerlof, 2020. "Sins of Omission and the Practice of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(2), pages 405-418, June.
    27. Anna Aizer & Shari Eli & Joseph Ferrie & Adriana Lleras-Muney, 2016. "The Long-Run Impact of Cash Transfers to Poor Families," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(4), pages 935-971, April.
    28. David E. Broockman & Daniel M. Butler, 2017. "The Causal Effects of Elite Position‐Taking on Voter Attitudes: Field Experiments with Elite Communication," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(1), pages 208-221, January.
    29. E. Glen Weyl, 2018. "The Openness‐equality Trade‐off in Global Redistribution," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(612), pages 1-36, July.
    30. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
    31. Boas, Taylor C. & Christenson, Dino P. & Glick, David M., 2020. "Recruiting large online samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 232-250, April.
    32. Ravallion, Martin & Lokshin, Michael, 2000. "Who wants to redistribute?: The tunnel effect in 1990s Russia," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 87-104, April.
    33. Daniel Klein, 2018. "Implementing a general framework for assessing interrater agreement in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 18(4), pages 871-901, December.
    34. Raj Chetty & Nathaniel Hendren & Lawrence F. Katz, 2016. "The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(4), pages 855-902, April.
    35. Kerris Cooper & Kitty Stewart, 2017. "Does Money Affect Children's Outcomes? An update," CASE Papers /203, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    36. Barber, Michael & Pope, Jeremy C., 2019. "Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 38-54, February.
    37. Siwei Cheng & Fangqi Wen, 2019. "Americans overestimate the intergenerational persistence in income ranks," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(28), pages 13909-13914, July.
    38. Kerris Cooper & Kitty Stewart, 2013. "Does money affect children’s outcomes?," CASE Reports casereport80, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    39. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    40. J. Solnick, Sara & Hemenway, David, 1998. "Is more always better?: A survey on positional concerns," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 373-383, November.
    41. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:479-491 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Simon, Lisa & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2023. "Can internet surveys represent the entire population? A practitioners’ analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Windsteiger, Lisa, 2022. "The redistributive consequences of segregation and misperceptions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Laméris, Maite D. & Garretsen, Harry & Jong-A-Pin, Richard, 2020. "Political ideology and the intragenerational prospect of upward mobility," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    3. Juliana Londoño-Vélez, 2022. "The Impact of Diversity on Perceptions of Income Distribution and Preferences for Redistribution," NBER Working Papers 30386, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Roth, Christopher & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2018. "Experienced inequality and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 251-262.
    5. Spencer Bastani & Daniel Waldenström, 2021. "Perceptions of Inherited Wealth and the Support for Inheritance Taxation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 532-569, April.
    6. Ernst Fehr & Thomas Epper & Julien Senn, 2022. "Other-regarding Preferences and Redistributive Politics," Working Papers hal-03506826, HAL.
    7. Fehr Ernst & Epper Thomas & Senn Julien, 2020. "Social preferences and redistributive politics," ECON - Working Papers 339, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Aug 2023.
    8. Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M. & Krozer, Alice & Ramírez-Álvarez, Aurora A. & de la Torre, Rodolfo & Velez-Grajales, Roberto, 2022. "Perceptions of inequality and social mobility in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    9. Londoño-Vélez, Juliana, 2022. "The impact of diversity on perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    10. Hoy, Christopher & Mager, Franziska, 2021. "American exceptionalism? Differences in the elasticity of preferences for redistribution between the United States and Western Europe," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 518-540.
    11. Hope, David & Limberg, Julian & Weber, Nina, 2023. "Why do (some) ordinary Americans support tax cuts for the rich? Evidence from a randomised survey experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Andreoli, Francesco & Olivera, Javier, 2020. "Preferences for redistribution and exposure to tax-benefit schemes in Europe," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    13. Eiji Yamamura, 2021. "Information of income position and its impact on perceived tax burden and preference for redistribution: An Internet Survey Experiment," Papers 2106.11537, arXiv.org.
    14. Lisa Windsteiger, 2018. "Monopolistic Supply of Sorting, Inequality and Welfare," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2018-15, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    15. Lisa Windsteiger, 2018. "Sorting in the Presence of Misperceptions," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2018-08, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    16. Mu, Ren, 2022. "Perceived relative income, fairness, and the role of government: Evidence from a randomized survey experiment in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    17. Silvia Galdi & Anne Maass & Annalisa Robbiani, 2020. "The bright side of pessimism: Promoting wealth redistribution under (felt) economic hardship," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-34, December.
    18. Gwangeun Choi, 2021. "Individuals’ socioeconomic position, inequality perceptions, and redistributive preferences in OECD countries," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(2), pages 239-264, June.
    19. Nina Weber, 2023. "Experience of Social Mobility and Support for Redistribution: Accepting or Blaming the System?," ifo Working Paper Series 397, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    20. Dietmar Fehr & Daniel Müller & Marcel Preuss, 2020. "Social Mobility Perceptions and Inequality Acceptance," Working Papers 2020-02, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Intergenerational mobility; Survey experiment; Redistribution; Persuasion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • J62 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers - - - Job, Occupational and Intergenerational Mobility; Promotion
    • J68 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers - - - Public Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:poleco:v:74:y:2022:i:c:s0176268021001397. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505544 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.