Spectators versus stakeholders with or without veil of ignorance: the difference it makes for justice and chosen distribution criteria
AbstractWe document with a randomized experiment that being spectators and, to a lesser extent, stakeholders with veil of ignorance on relative payoffs, induces subjects who can choose distribution criteria to prefer rewarding talent (vis à vis effort, chance or strict egalitarianism) after guaranteeing a minimal egalitarian base. The removal of the veil of ignorance reduces dramatically such choice since most players opt or revise their decision in favour of the criterion which maximizes their own payoff (and, by doing so, end up being farther from the maximin choice). Large part (but not all) of the stakeholders? choices before the removal of the veil of ignorance are driven by their performance beliefs since two thirds of them choose under the veil the criterion in which they assume to perform relatively better.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Econometica in its series Econometica Working Papers with number wp31.
Date of creation: Aug 2011
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Edificio U9, Viale dell'Innovazione, 10, 20126 Milano
Phone: 0039 02 6448 6540
Web page: http://www.econometica.it
More information through EDIRC
Distributive Justice; Perceived Fairness; Talent; Chance and Effort; Veil of Ignorance;
Other versions of this item:
- Leonardo Becchetti & Giacomo Degli Antoni & Stefania Ottone & Nazaria Solferino, 2011. "Spectators versus stakeholders with or without veil of ignorance: The difference it makes for justice and chosen distribution criteria," Working Papers 204, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2011-08-09 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2011-08-09 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2011-08-09 (Experimental Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Offerman, Theo & Sonnemans, Joep & Schram, Arthur, 1996. "Value Orientations, Expectations and Voluntary Contributions in Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 817-45, July.
- Kagel, John H. & Kim, Chung & Moser, Donald, 1996. "Fairness in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Information and Asymmetric Payoffs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 100-110, March.
- James Konow, 2001.
"A Positive Theory of Economic Fairness,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
563824000000000138, David K. Levine.
- Magnus Johannesson & Ulf-G Gerdtham, 1995. "A pilot test of using the veil of ignorance approach to estimate a social welfare function for income," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(10), pages 400-402.
- Hörisch, Hannah, 2008.
"Is the veil of ignorance only a concept about risk? An experiment,"
Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems
230, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
- Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2010. "Is the veil of ignorance only a concept about risk? An experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(11-12), pages 1062-1066, December.
- Hörisch, Hannah, 2007. "Is the veil of ignorance only a concept about risk? An experiment," Discussion Papers in Economics 1362, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Huck, Steffen & Weizsacker, Georg, 2002. "Do players correctly estimate what others do? : Evidence of conservatism in beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-85, January.
- Steven R. Beckman & Buhong Zheng & John P. Formby & W. James Smith, 2002. "Envy, malice and Pareto efficiency: An experimental examination," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 349-367.
- Louis Putterman & Ruben Durante, 2009.
"Preferences for Redistribution and Perception of Fairness: An Experimental Study,"
Sciences Po publications
info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompq, Sciences Po.
- Ruben Durante & Louis Putterman & Joël van der Weele, 2013. "Preferences for Redistribution and Perception of Fairness: An Experimental Study," Working Papers 2013-7, Brown University, Department of Economics.
- Ruben Durante & Louis Putterman, 2007. "Preferences For Redistribution and Perception of Fairness: An Experimental Study," Working Papers 2007-13, Brown University, Department of Economics.
- repec:bla:restud:v:76:y:2009:i:4:p:1461-1489 is not listed on IDEAS
- F. Carlsson & G. Gupta & O. Johansson-Stenman, 2003.
"Choosing from behind a veil of ignorance in India,"
Applied Economics Letters,
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(13), pages 825-827.
- Riyanto, Yohanes Eko & Zhang, Jianlin, 2010. "An Egalitarian Regime Breeds Generosity: The Effect of Endowment Allocation Procedures on Social Preferences," MPRA Paper 21727, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Overlaet, Bert, 1991. "Merit criteria as justification for differences in earnings," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 689-706, December.
- Binmore, Ken, 2005. "Natural Justice," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195178111.
- Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November.
- Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
- Jana Vyrastekova & Sander Onderstal, 2010. "The Trust Game behind the Veil of Ignorance: A Note on Gender Differences," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 10-063/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- Nicola Frignani & Giovanni Ponti, 2011. "Social vs. risk preferences under the veil of ignorance," Working Papers. Serie AD 2011-07, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
- Bhattacharya, Sudipto & Pfleiderer, Paul, 1985. "Delegated portfolio management," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-25, June.
- Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri D. Hole & Erik Ø. Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2005.
"The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
1611, CESifo Group Munich.
- Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri Drange Hole & Erik Ø Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2007. "The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 818-827, June.
- Lorenzo Sacconi, 2008. "CSR as contractarian model of multi-stakeholder corporate governance and the game-theory of its implementation," Department of Economics Working Papers 0818, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
- Vyrastekova, J. & Onderstal, A.M., 2005. "The Trust Game Behind the Veil of Ignorance: A Note on Gender Differences," Discussion Paper 2005-96, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- James Konow, 2000. "Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1072-1091, September.
- Theo Offerman & Joep Sonnemans & Gijs Van De Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2009. "A Truth Serum for Non-Bayesians: Correcting Proper Scoring Rules for Risk Attitudes ," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 76(4), pages 1461-1489.
- Lucy F. Ackert & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Mark Rider, 2004.
"Tax policy design in the presence of social preferences: some experimental evidence,"
2004-33, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
- Lucy F. Ackert & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez & Mark Rider, 2004. "Tax Policy Design in The Presence of Social Preferences: Some Experimental Evidence," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper0425, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
- Yaw Nyarko & Andrew Schotter, 2002. "An Experimental Study of Belief Learning Using Elicited Beliefs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(3), pages 971-1005, May.
- Ruffle, Bradley J., 1998. "More Is Better, But Fair Is Fair: Tipping in Dictator and Ultimatum Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 247-265, May.
- James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
- Leonardo Becchetti & Giacomo Degli Antoni & Stefania Ottone & Nazaria Solferino, 2011.
"Allocation criteria under task performance: the gendered preference for protection,"
Econometica Working Papers
- Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," The Journal of Socio-Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
- Leonardo Becchetti & Giacomo Degli Antoni & Stefania Ottone & Nazaria Solferino, 2011. "Allocation Criteria under Task Performance: the Gendered Preference for Protection," CEIS Research Paper 214, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 24 Oct 2011.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Matteo Rizzolli).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.