IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v106y2023ics2214804323000988.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of inequality acceptability in a representative sample of the Spanish population

Author

Listed:
  • Santamaría, Diego
  • Miller, Luis
  • Ubeda, Paloma
  • Padilla-Angulo, Laura

Abstract

Why is there general support for equality-enhancing policies in some social contexts, while in others, social inequalities seem to be widely regarded as acceptable? In the last sixty years, this research question has been raised hundreds of times across the social sciences. Here, we use a survey-experimental design that may overcome some of the limitations of previous studies. Three sets of determinants of inequality acceptability are explored: individual socioeconomic status (SES), societal economic inequality, and the source or origin of inequality. The results of a survey experiment conducted in 2020 based on a representative sample confirm that inequalities are considered fairer by high-SES individuals and when they are due to performance. Although the effect of societal inequality on preferences is less robust, we find that in more unequal contexts, equal distributions are judged to be fairer.

Suggested Citation

  • Santamaría, Diego & Miller, Luis & Ubeda, Paloma & Padilla-Angulo, Laura, 2023. "Determinants of inequality acceptability in a representative sample of the Spanish population," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:106:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323000988
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2023.102072
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804323000988
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2023.102072?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    3. Margalit, Yotam, 2013. "Explaining Social Policy Preferences: Evidence from the Great Recession," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 80-103, February.
    4. Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
    5. Ingvild Almås & Alexander W. Cappelen & Bertil Tungodden, 2020. "Cutthroat Capitalism versus Cuddly Socialism: Are Americans More Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking than Scandinavians?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1753-1788.
    6. 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.
    7. Winter, Fabian & Rauhut, Heiko & Miller, Luis, 2018. "Dynamic Bargaining and Normative Conflict," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 112-126.
    8. Roth, Christopher & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2018. "Experienced inequality and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 251-262.
    9. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    10. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    11. Jakiela, Pamela, 2015. "How fair shares compare: Experimental evidence from two cultures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 40-54.
    12. 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.
    13. Barr, Abigail & Burns, Justine & Miller, Luis & Shaw, Ingrid, 2015. "Economic status and acknowledgement of earned entitlement," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 55-68.
    14. Ismael Rodriguez-Lara & Luis Moreno-Garrido, 2012. "Self-interest and fairness: self-serving choices of justice principles," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 158-175, March.
    15. Norman Frohlich & Joe Oppenheimer & Anja Kurki, 2004. "Modeling Other-Regarding Preferences and an Experimental Test," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(1_2), pages 91-117, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Fernández-Albertos, José & Kuo, Alexander, 2018. "Income Perception, Information, and Progressive Taxation: Evidence from a Survey Experiment," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 83-110, January.
    18. Demel, Simona & Barr, Abigail & Miller, Luis & Ubeda, Paloma, 2019. "Commitment to Political Ideology is a Luxury Only Students Can Afford: A Distributive Justice Experiment," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 33-42, April.
    19. Barr, Abigail & Miller, Luis, 2020. "The effect of education, income inequality and merit on inequality acceptance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    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. Justin Valasek & Pauline Vorjohann & Weijia Wang & Justin Mattias Valasek, 2024. "Fairness Preferences, Inequality Acceptance and Default Effects," CESifo Working Paper Series 11288, CESifo.

    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. Grundmann, Susanna, 2020. "Do just deserts and competition shape patterns of cheating?," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-79-20, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    2. Anna Hochleitner, 2022. "Fairness in times of crisis: Negative shocks, relative income and preferences for redistribution," Discussion Papers 2022-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    3. Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Gari Walkowitz, 2017. "Moral Entitlements and Aspiration Formation in Asymmetric Bargaining: Experimental Evidence from Germany and China," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-25, October.
    4. Müller Daniel & Sander Renes, 2019. "Fairness Views and Political Preferences - Evidence from a representative sample," Working Papers 2019-08, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    5. Ismael Rodriguez-Lara & Luis Moreno-Garrido, 2012. "Modeling Inequity Aversion in a Dictator Game with Production," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-12, October.
    6. Falch, Ranveig, 2021. "How Do People Trade Off Resources Between Quick and Slow Learners?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 5/2021, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    7. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    8. Daniel Müller & Sander Renes, 2021. "Fairness views and political preferences: evidence from a large and heterogeneous sample," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 679-711, May.
    9. Cox, Caleb A. & Stoddard, Brock, 2024. "Inequality and the allocation of collective goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 756-767.
    10. Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Rilke, Rainer Michael & Walkowitz, Gari, 2013. "Self-Serving Use of Equity Rules in Bargaining with Asymmetric Outside Options," IZA Discussion Papers 7625, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Falch, Ranveig, 2022. "How do people trade off resources between quick and slow learners?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    12. Elena Cettolin & Arno Riedl, 2017. "Justice Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3739-3759, November.
    13. Barr, Abigail & Miller, Luis, 2020. "The effect of education, income inequality and merit on inequality acceptance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    14. Kingsley, David C., 2016. "Endowment heterogeneity and peer punishment in a public good experiment: Cooperation and normative conflict," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 49-61.
    15. Gantner, Anita & Horn, Kristian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Fair and efficient division through unanimity bargaining when claims are subjective," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 56-73.
    16. Bjorn Bartling & Alexander Cappelen & Mathias Ekström & Erik Ø. Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2018. "Fairness in Winner-Take-All Markets," Working Papers 2018-031, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    17. Paetzel, Fabian & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2018. "Cognitive ability and in-group bias: An experimental study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 280-292.
    18. Gill, David & Stone, Rebecca, 2010. "Fairness and desert in tournaments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 346-364, July.
    19. Urs Fischbacher & Nadja Kairies-Schwarz & Ulrike Stefani, 2017. "Non-additivity and the Salience of Marginal Productivities: Experimental Evidence on Distributive Fairness," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(336), pages 587-610, October.
    20. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Inequality; Redistribution; Socioeconomic status; Survey experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • 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:soceco:v:106:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323000988. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.