IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jeczfn/v77y2002i1p223-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Equitable taxation: Qualitative versus quantitative ratings

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan Traub

Abstract

This paper reports on an experimental investigation into the perception of fairness in taxation. 219 subjects rated their own tax burdens, stated their preferred type of tax scale, and proposed fair tax burdens for a number of reference households. While the former two tasks involved qualitative ratings, the latter one required quantitative ratings, that is, the respondents were forced to express their judgments on different types of response scales. Contrasting the subjects' qualitative ratings with their quantitative ratings, we found major inconsistencies. We conclude from this that the task context (for example, the basic political attitude) becomes more prominent in qualitative ratings while individual factors of perception, such as anchor points, become more prominent in quantitative ratings. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2002

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan Traub, 2002. "Equitable taxation: Qualitative versus quantitative ratings," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 223-240, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jeczfn:v:77:y:2002:i:1:p:223-240
    DOI: 10.1007/BF03052505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF03052505
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF03052505?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Seidl, Christian, 2002. "Preference Reversal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 621-655, December.
    2. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680, Decembrie.
    3. Sarah Lichtenstein & Paul Slovic, 1973. "Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in las vegas," Framed Field Experiments 00169, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Arrow, Kenneth J, 1982. "Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(1), pages 1-9, January.
    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. Jeremiah Hurley & Neil Buckley & Katherine Cuff & Mita Giacomini & David Cameron, 2011. "Judgments regarding the fair division of goods: the impact of verbal versus quantitative descriptions of alternative divisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 341-372, July.

    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. Gold, Natalie & List, Christian, 2004. "Framing as Path Dependence," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 253-277, October.
    2. Hammond, Peter J & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1033, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    3. Friedman, Daniel & Habib, Sameh & James, Duncan & Crockett, Sean, 2018. "Varieties of risk elicitation," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship Market Design: Theory and Pragmatics SP II 2018-501, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:427-440 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.
    6. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    7. Enrico Rubaltelli & Stephan Dickert & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Response mode, compatibility, and dual-processes in the evaluation of simple gambles: An eye-tracking investigation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 427-440, July.
    8. Braga, Jacinto & Humphrey, Steven J. & Starmer, Chris, 2009. "Market experience eliminates some anomalies--and creates new ones," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 401-416, May.
    9. Ball, Linden J. & Bardsley, Nicholas & Ormerod, Tom, 2012. "Do preference reversals generalise? Results on ambiguity and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 48-57.
    10. Zhang, Jiao & Hsee, Christopher K. & Xiao, Zhixing, 2006. "The majority rule in individual decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 102-111, January.
    11. Oliver, Adam, 2013. "Testing the rate of preference reversal in personal and social decision-making," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1250-1257.
    12. Wright, Austin L. & Sonin, Konstantin & Driscoll, Jesse & Wilson, Jarnickae, 2020. "Poverty and economic dislocation reduce compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place protocols," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 544-554.
    13. Janvier D. Nkurunziza, 2005. "Reputation and Credit without Collateral in Africa`s Formal Banking," Economics Series Working Papers WPS/2005-02, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    14. Vadim Borokhov, 2014. "On the properties of nodal price response matrix in electricity markets," Papers 1404.3678, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.
    15. Gan, Li & Ju, Gaosheng & Zhu, Xi, 2015. "Nonparametric estimation of structural labor supply and exact welfare change under nonconvex piecewise-linear budget sets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 188(2), pages 526-544.
    16. Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Boisvert, Richard N. & de Gorter, Harry, 1999. "Multifunctionality and Optimal Environmental Policies for Agriculture in an Open Economy," Working Papers 127701, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    17. Aldasoro, Iñaki & Delli Gatti, Domenico & Faia, Ester, 2017. "Bank networks: Contagion, systemic risk and prudential policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 164-188.
    18. Gatti, Nicolas & Cecil, Michael & Baylis, Kathy & Estes, Lyndon & Blekking, Jordan & Heckelei, Thomas & Vergopolan, Noemi & Evans, Tom, 2023. "Is closing the agricultural yield gap a “risky” endeavor?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    19. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    20. Delgado, Michael S. & Khanna, Neha, 2015. "Voluntary Pollution Abatement and Regulation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 1-20, April.
    21. Bhattacharya, D., 2018. "Income Effects and Rationalizability in Multinomial Choice Models," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1884, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Taxation; Fairness; Equity; C91; H24; D63;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    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:kap:jeczfn:v:77:y:2002:i:1:p:223-240. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.