IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eecrev/v185y2026ics0014292126000127.html

The talent paradox: Why is it fair to reward talent but not luck?

Author

Listed:
  • Bartling, Björn
  • Cappelen, Alexander W.
  • Skarpeid, Ingvild L.
  • Sørensen, Erik Ø.
  • Tungodden, Bertil

Abstract

In a large-scale survey of the US population, we show that people are more accepting of inequality caused by talent than of inequality caused by luck, even after controlling for beliefs about the extent to which these factors are within individual control. We refer to this pattern as the “talent paradox.” In an experiment, we provide evidence that this paradox may arise because people view others as having ownership over the fruits of their talent if they have acted on it, even when the talent itself is beyond individual control. In contrast, varying whether the talent is determined by a personal or impersonal characteristic outside individual control has no effect on the acceptance of inequality. Our findings offer new evidence on the nature of people’s fairness views and shed light on political debates over the acceptability of inequality in society.

Suggested Citation

  • Bartling, Björn & Cappelen, Alexander W. & Skarpeid, Ingvild L. & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil, 2026. "The talent paradox: Why is it fair to reward talent but not luck?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:185:y:2026:i:c:s0014292126000127
    DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2026.105268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292126000127
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2026.105268?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

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • 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:eee:eecrev:v:185:y:2026:i:c:s0014292126000127. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/eer .

    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.