IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/cbscwp/323.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Private sanctions

Author

Listed:
  • Hart, Oliver D.
  • Thesmar, David
  • Zingales, Luigi

Abstract

We survey a representative sample of the U.S. population to understand stakeholders' desire to see their firms exit Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. 61% of respondents think that firms should exit Russia, regardless of the consequences. Only 37% think that leaving Russia is a purely business decision. If a firm does not conform with these desires, 66% of the respondents are willing to boycott it. This desire diminishes with the costs they face in boycotting. At $500, 43% would want to boycott. Our model is able to explain up to 24% of the cross-sectional variability in attitudes to boycotting. Nevertheless, it is difficult to separate deontological and consequentialist motives to boycott, because subjects' beliefs are highly correlated with values. When we randomize the beliefs we find a strong effect for shareholders, but not for the other stakeholders. We discuss what are the geopolitical and economic implications of a world where private corporations discontinue profitable business relationships for moral or political reasons.

Suggested Citation

  • Hart, Oliver D. & Thesmar, David & Zingales, Luigi, 2022. "Private sanctions," Working Papers 323, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:cbscwp:323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/266348/1/1818219468.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2021. "Understanding Tax Policy: How do People Reason?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2309-2369.
    3. Augustin Landier & David Thesmar, 2022. "Who is Neoliberal? Durkheimian Individualism and Support for Market Mechanisms," NBER Working Papers 29942, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Javier Olivera & Philippe Kerm, 2022. "Public support for tax policies in COVID-19 times: evidence from Luxembourg," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(6), pages 1395-1418, December.
    2. Busso, Matias & Ibáñez, Ana María & Messina, Julián & Quigua, Juliana, 2023. "Preferences for redistribution in Latin America," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120687, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Jeffrey, Karen, 2021. "Automation and the future of work: How rhetoric shapes the response in policy preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 417-433.
    4. Hope, David & Limberg, Julian & Weber, Nina Sophie, 2021. "Why Do (Some) Ordinary Americans Support Tax Cuts for the Rich? Evidence From a Randomized Survey Experiment," SocArXiv chk9b, Center for Open Science.
    5. Andrea Fazio, 2021. "Beautiful inequality: Are beautiful people more willing to redistribute?," Working Papers in Public Economics 194, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Economics and Law.
    6. Jäger, Simon & Roth, Christopher & Roussille, Nina & Schoefer, Benjamin, 2021. "Worker Beliefs about Outside Options," IZA Discussion Papers 14963, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Cotofan, Maria & Matakos, Konstantinos, 2023. "Adapting or compounding? The effects of recurring labour shocks on stated and revealed preferences for redistribution," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121297, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Rozo, Sandra, 2021. "How Does it Feel to Be Part of the Minority?: Impacts of Perspective Taking on Prosocial Behavior," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 11599, Inter-American Development Bank.
    9. Andrew E. Clark & Maria Cotofan, 2023. "Are the upwardly mobile more left-wing?," CEP Discussion Papers dp1938, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    10. Tim Krieger & Christine Meemann & Stefan Traub, 2022. "Inequality, Life Expectancy, and the Intragenerational Redistribution Puzzle - Some Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9677, CESifo.
    11. Neidhöfer, Guido & Serrano, Joaquín & Gasparini, Leonardo, 2018. "Educational inequality and intergenerational mobility in Latin America: A new database," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 329-349.
    12. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    13. Smith, V. Kerry, 2021. "A note on income inequality at the state level," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    14. Alesina, Alberto & Murard, Elie & Rapoport, Hillel, 2019. "Immigration and Preferences for Redistribution in Europe," IZA Discussion Papers 12130, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Cars Hommes & Julien Pinter & Isabelle Salle, 2023. "What People Believe about Monetary Finance and What We Can(‘t) Do about It: Evidence from a Large-Scale, Multi-Country Survey Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 10574, CESifo.
    16. Heap, Shaun P. Hargreaves & Koop, Christel & Matakos, Konstantinos & Unan, Asli & Weber, Nina Sophie, 2021. "We Cannot Disagree Forever! Reality Polarization and Citizens’ Post-Pandemic Fiscal Adjustment Preferences," SocArXiv 69tup, Center for Open Science.
    17. Christel Kesler & Amber Churchwell, 2020. "The Obama Effect on Perceived Mobility," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, June.
    18. 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).
    19. Alberto Alesina & Marlon Seror & David Y. Yang & Yang You & Weihong Zeng, 2020. "Persistence through Revolutions," Working Papers DT/2020/09, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
    20. Lasse J. Jessen & Sebastian Koehne & Patrick Nüß & Jens Ruhose, 2024. "Socioeconomic Inequality in Life Expectancy: Perception and Policy Demand," CESifo Working Paper Series 10940, CESifo.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:cbscwp:323. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsuchus.html .

    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.