IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v37y2008i3p1090-1118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative study of equity judgements in Lithuania and Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Jungeilges, Jochen A.
  • Theisen, Theis

Abstract

A questionnaire-type experiment was conducted in Lithuania and Norway in order to generate two samples suitable for a comparative examination of equity judgements.The results reveal large differences between the two countries. Norwegian probants had a much higher propensity to decide in accordance with Rawls' second principle than had Lithuanian probants. Equity judgements are also strongly dependent on the context of choice. The results are interpreted within a framework describing the formation of social preferences. More specifically, differences in observed equity judgements in the two countries are related to differences in history, past experience and future prospects.

Suggested Citation

  • Jungeilges, Jochen A. & Theisen, Theis, 2008. "A comparative study of equity judgements in Lithuania and Norway," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1090-1118, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:37:y:2008:i:3:p:1090-1118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W5H-4NJ20F5-B/1/f59ae70074bdf3925cc5fef07a2b220f
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. S. Abu Turab Rizvi, 2001. "Preference Formation and the Axioms of Choice," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 141-159.
    2. Paldam, Martin & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2000. "An essay on social capital: looking for the fire behind the smoke," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 339-366, June.
    3. Deaton,Angus & Muellbauer,John, 1980. "Economics and Consumer Behavior," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521296762.
    4. Jan Svejnar, 2002. "Transition Economies: Performance and Challenges," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 3-28, Winter.
    5. Easterlin, Richard A., 1976. "Population Change and Farm Settlement in the Northern United States," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 45-75, March.
    6. Lester, David, 2003. "Comment on "The self as a problem": alternative conceptions of the multiple self," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 499-502, November.
    7. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
    8. Gaertner, Wulf & Jungeilges, Jochen, 1993. "'Spindles' and coexisting attractors in a dynamic model of interdependent consumer behavior : A note," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 223-231, June.
    9. Jochen Jungeilges & Theis Theisen, 2005. "Equity Judgements Elicited Through Experiments: An Econometric Examination," International Economic Association Series, in: Bina Agarwal & Alessandro Vercelli (ed.), Psychology, Rationality and Economic Behaviour, chapter 10, pages 195-241, Palgrave Macmillan.
    10. Caplan, Bryan, 2003. "Stigler-Becker versus Myers-Briggs: why preference-based explanations are scientifically meaningful and empirically important," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 391-405, April.
    11. Tomer, John F., 1996. "Good habits and bad habits: A new age socio-economic model of preference formation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 619-638.
    12. 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.
    13. Etzioni, Amitai, 1986. "The Case for a Multiple-Utility Conception," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 159-184, October.
    14. Moldoveanu, Mihnea & Stevenson, Howard, 2001. "The self as a problem: the intra-personal coordination of conflicting desires," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 295-330.
    15. Anderson, Christopher J. & O'Conner, Kathleen M., 2000. "System Change, Learning and Public Opinion about the Economy," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 147-172, January.
    16. Diane J. Macunovich, 1997. "A conversation with Richard Easterlin," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 119-136.
    17. Jess Benhabib & Richard H. Day, 1981. "Rational Choice and Erratic Behaviour," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 48(3), pages 459-471.
    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. Remigiusz Gawlik & Gorm Jacobsen, 2016. "Work-life Balance Decision-making of Norwegian Students: Implications for Human Resources Management," Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Centre for Strategic and International Entrepreneurship at the Cracow University of Economics., vol. 4(4), pages 153-170.
    2. J. Jungeilges & T. Theisen, 2011. "State dependence in sequential equity judgements," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(1), pages 97-119, June.
    3. İbrahim Erdem SEÇİLMİŞ, 2014. "Seniority: A Blessing or A Curse? The Effect of Economics Training on the Perception of Distributive Justice," Sosyoekonomi Journal, Sosyoekonomi Society, issue 22(22).
    4. Sara Schmid & Rudolf Vetschera & Judit Lienert, 2021. "Testing Fairness Principles for Public Environmental Infrastructure Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 611-640, June.

    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. Clément, Valérie & Moureau, Nathalie & Vidal, Marion, 2009. "À la recherche des biens sous tutelle," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 85(4), pages 383-401, décembre.
    2. Bazin, Damien & Ballet, Jerome, 2006. "A basic model for multiple self," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 1050-1060, December.
    3. S. Abu Turab Rizvi, 2001. "Preference Formation and the Axioms of Choice," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 141-159.
    4. Elodie Brahic & Valérie Clément & Nathalie Moureau & Marion Vidal, 2008. "A la recherche des Merit Goods," Working Papers 08-08, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jun 2008.
    5. Tomer, John F., 1996. "Good habits and bad habits: A new age socio-economic model of preference formation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 619-638.
    6. Wei-Bin Zhang, 2016. "Fashion with Snobs and Bandwagoners in a Three-Type Households and Three-Sector Neoclassical Growth Model Representación del consumo: Modelo de Crecimiento Neoclásico con Tres Factores," Remef - The Mexican Journal of Economics and Finance, Instituto Mexicano de Ejecutivos de Finanzas. Remef, June.
    7. Christian Barrère, 2007. "Towards an Economic and Substantivist Theory of Heritage [Vers une théorie économique substantiviste du patrimoine]," Post-Print hal-02615269, HAL.
    8. Davide Consoli, 2005. "Cash and the Counter: Capabilities and Preferences in the Demand for Banking Technologies," Industrial Organization 0511001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Di Giovinazzo, Viviana & Naimzada, Ahmad, 2015. "A model of fashion: Endogenous preferences in social interaction," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 12-17.
    10. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    11. Wei-Bin Zhang, 2017. "Fashion and Business Cycles with Snobs and Bandwagoners in a Multi-Sector Growth Model," Journal of Business, LAR Center Press, vol. 2(3), pages 1-13, May.
    12. Clements, Kenneth W. & Gao, Grace, 2015. "The Rotterdam demand model half a century on," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 91-103.
    13. Pamela Schmitt & Kurtis Swope & Robert Shupp & Justin Mayer, 2004. "Personality Preferences and Pre-Commitment: Behavioral Explanations in Ultimatum Games," Departmental Working Papers 6, United States Naval Academy Department of Economics.
    14. Sara Suárez-Fernández & David Boto-García, 2019. "Unraveling the effect of extrinsic reading on reading with intrinsic motivation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 43(4), pages 579-605, December.
    15. Thomas J. Miceli & Alanson P. Minkler, 1997. "Preferences, cooperation, and Institutions," Working papers 1997-06, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    16. Khalil, Elias, 2007. "Emotions and International Conflicts: Sociological, Evolutionary and Rational Views," MPRA Paper 2279, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. James Fogarty, 2010. "The Demand For Beer, Wine And Spirits: A Survey Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 428-478, July.
    18. Burton, Michael & Young, Trevor, 1990. "Changes in Consumer Preferences For Meat in Great Britain: Non-Parametric and Parametric Analysis," Manchester Working Papers in Agricultural Economics 232820, University of Manchester, School of Economics, Agricultural Economics Department.
    19. Morley Gunderson & Byron Lee & Guenther Lomas, 2022. "The importance of prejudice against persons with disabilities," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 138-155, February.
    20. Daniela Kletzan & Angela Köppl & Kurt Kratena & Michael Wüger, 2002. "Nachhaltiger Konsum: Ökonomische Modellierung," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 75(7), pages 457-465, July.

    More about this item

    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:soceco:v:37:y:2008:i:3:p:1090-1118. 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/620175 .

    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.