Fragile Redistribution Choices behind a Veil of Ignorance
AbstractPrescription dealing with redistribution questions are often influenced by the presumption that individuals behind a veil of ignorance will choose rules that lead to a greater equality of outcomes. However, such preferences may be fragile and dependent on particular circumstances. To the extent that initial distributions are seen to be deserved, for example, people may not choose to impose losses on some individuals to confer benefits on others. A series of tests in which individuals chose between alternative distribution rules under circumstances approximating a veil of ignorance showed large differences in redistribution preferences. Copyright 1997 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.
Volume (Year): 14 (1997)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100299
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2005.
"Are People Inequality-Averse, or Just Risk-Averse?,"
London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 72(3), pages 375-396, 08.
- John Bone & Paolo Crosetto & John D. Hey & Carmen Pasca, 2013.
"Change versus choice: eliciting attitudes to fair compensations,"
Jena Economic Research Papers
2013-029, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
- John Bone & Paolo Crosetto & John D Hey & Carmen Pasca, 2013. "Chance versus choice: eliciting attitudes to fair compensations," Discussion Papers 13/15, Department of Economics, University of York.
- Helgeson, Jennifer & Dietz, Simon & Atkinson, Giles D. & Hepburn, Cameron & Sælen, Håkon, 2009.
"Siblings, not triplets: social preferences for risk, inequality and time in discounting climate change,"
Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal,
Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 3(26), pages 1-28.
- Atkinson, Giles D. & Dietz, Simon & Helgeson, Jennifer & Hepburn, Cameron & Sælen, Håkon, 2009. "Siblings, not triplets: social preferences for risk, inequality and time in discounting climate change," Economics Discussion Papers 2009-14, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- Knetsch, Jack L. & Wong, Wei-Kang, 2009. "The endowment effect and the reference state: Evidence and manipulations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 407-413, August.
- Cameron Hepburn & Hakon SÃƒÂ¦len & Giles Atkinson, 2008. "Risk, inequality and time in the welfare economics of climate change: is the workhorse model underspecified?," Economics Series Working Papers 400, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Carlsson, Fredrik & Daruvala, Dinky, 2001. "Measuring Hypothetical Grandparents Preferences For Equality And Relative Standings," Working Papers in Economics 42, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- Fredrik Andersson & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 1999. "Preferences for equity in health behind a veil of ignorance," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(5), pages 369-378.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.