IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v54y2021i1d10.1007_s11077-020-09408-w.html

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

   My bibliography  Save this article

Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Henrik Serup Christensen

    (Åbo Akademi University)

  • Lauri Rapeli

    (Åbo Akademi University)

Abstract

Previous scholarship has focused primarily on how citizens’ form policy preferences and how those preferences are taken into account in democratic decision-making. However, the temporal aspect of policy preferences has received little attention, although many significant societal problems have consequences that extend far into the future. To fill the gap, we examine to what extent citizens are willing to support policies, when rewards can only be expected after several electoral cycles. Using a conjoint survey experiment, we demonstrate that while a slight tendency towards more immediate policy rewards is discernible, citizens are not as impatient as has been widely assumed. In contrast with previous research, political trust does not affect the impact of the time horizon of policy choice. Instead, we find that people with higher education are more likely to choose policies the benefits of which materialize in the distant future. These findings add to the growing evidence which suggests that citizens’ short-sightedness is not a very strong driver of democratic myopia.

Suggested Citation

  • Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-020-09408-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-020-09408-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-020-09408-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-020-09408-w?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. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2015. "Do Respondents Adjust Their Expected Utility in the Presence of an Outcome Certainty Attribute in a Choice Experiment?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 125-142, January.
    2. Healy, Andrew & Malhotra, Neil, 2009. "Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(3), pages 387-406, August.
    3. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    4. Robert Brulle & Jason Carmichael & J. Jenkins, 2012. "Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 169-188, September.
    5. Beshears, John & Choi, James J. & Laibson, David & Madrian, Brigitte C., 2008. "How are preferences revealed?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1787-1794, August.
    6. Bullock, John G., 2011. "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 496-515, August.
    7. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara B. & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, April.
    8. Sáez, Lawrence & Sinha, Aseema, 2010. "Political Cycles, Political Institutions and Public Expenditure in India, 1980–2000," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 91-113, January.
    9. Antoine Bommier, 2006. "Uncertain Lifetime And Intertemporal Choice: Risk Aversion As A Rationale For Time Discounting," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1223-1246, November.
    10. Weaver, R. Kent, 1986. "The Politics of Blame Avoidance," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 371-398, October.
    11. Daniel Burghart & Trudy Cameron & Geoffrey Gerdes, 2007. "Valuing publicly sponsored research projects: Risks, scenario adjustments, and inattention," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 77-105, August.
    12. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    13. Jacobs, Alan M., 2008. "The Politics of When: Redistribution, Investment and Policy Making for the Long Term," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 193-220, April.
    14. William D. Nordhaus, 1975. "The Political Business Cycle," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 42(2), pages 169-190.
    15. Bansak, Kirk & Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2018. "The Number of Choice Tasks and Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 112-119, January.
    16. Jacobs, Alan M. & Matthews, J. Scott, 2012. "Why Do Citizens Discount the Future? Public Opinion and the Timing of Policy Consequences," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 903-935, October.
    17. Stuart Soroka & Patrick Fournier & Lilach Nir, 2019. "Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(38), pages 18888-18892, September.
    18. Soroka, Stuart N. & Wlezien, Christopher, 2005. "Opinion–Policy Dynamics: Public Preferences and Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(4), pages 665-689, October.
    19. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    20. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    21. Roberts, David C. & Boyer, Tracy A. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2008. "Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 584-593, July.
    22. Duch,Raymond M. & Stevenson,Randolph T., 2008. "The Economic Vote," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521707404, November.
    23. Verdegem, Pieter & Verhoest, Pascal, 0. "Profiling the non-user: Rethinking policy initiatives stimulating ICT acceptance," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10-11), pages 642-652, November.
    24. Beshears, John & Choi, James J. & Laibson, David & Madrian, Brigitte C., 2008. "How are preferences revealed?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1787-1794, August.
    25. Bechtel, Michael M. & Genovese, Federica & Scheve, Kenneth F., 2019. "Interests, Norms and Support for the Provision of Global Public Goods: The Case of Climate Co-operation," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 1333-1355, October.
    26. Jonathan J. Rolison & Yaniv Hanoch & Stacey Wood & Pi-Ju Liu, 2014. "Risk-Taking Differences Across the Adult Life Span: A Question of Age and Domain," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 69(6), pages 870-880.
    27. Duch,Raymond M. & Stevenson,Randolph T., 2008. "The Economic Vote," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521881029, November.
    28. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    29. Alan M. Jacobs & J. Scott Matthews, 2017. "Policy Attitudes in Institutional Context: Rules, Uncertainty, and the Mass Politics of Public Investment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(1), pages 194-207, January.
    30. Adrian Rinscheid & Silvia Pianta & Elke U. Weber, 2020. "Fast track or Slo-Mo? Public support and temporal preferences for phasing out fossil fuel cars in the United States," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 30-45, January.
    31. Read, Daniel & Read, N. L., 2004. "Time discounting over the lifespan," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 22-32, May.
    32. Sütterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2017. "Public acceptance of renewable energy technologies from an abstract versus concrete perspective and the positive imagery of solar power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 356-366.
    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. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    2. Kantorowicz, Jaroslaw & Collewet, Marion & DiGiuseppe, Matthew & Vrijburg, Hendrik, 2024. "How to finance green investments? The role of public debt," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    3. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    4. Barceló, Joan & Sheen, Greg Chih-Hsin & Tung, Hans H. & Wu, Wen-Chin, 2022. "Vaccine nationalism among the public: A cross-country experimental evidence of own-country bias towards COVID-19 vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    5. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Yahya, Nurul & Musa, Rusmani, 2013. "Status Quo Effect and Preferences Uncertainty: A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value (HEV) Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(1), pages 163-172.
    6. Belton, Cameron A. & Lunn, Peter D., 2020. "Smart choices? An experimental study of smart meters and time-of-use tariffs in Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    7. George Ward, 2015. "Is Happiness a Predictor of Election Results?," CEP Discussion Papers dp1343, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    8. Fabian Gunzinger & Jan-Egbert Sturm, 2016. "It's Politics, Stupid! Political Constraints Determined Governments' Reactions to the Great Recession," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(4), pages 584-603, November.
    9. Michael J. Frith, 2021. "Analysing conjoint experiments in Stata: the conjoint command," London Stata Conference 2021 14, Stata Users Group.
    10. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2016. "Voting and Popularity," CREMA Working Paper Series 2016-08, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    11. Arnesen, Sveinung, 2012. "Forecasting Norwegian elections: Out of work and out of office," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 789-796.
    12. Anne-Marie Jeannet & Tobias Heidland & Martin Ruhs, 2021. "What asylum and refugee policies do Europeans want? Evidence from a cross-national conjoint experiment," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 353-376, September.
    13. Chu, Haoran & Liu, Sixiao, 2021. "Light at the end of the tunnel: Influence of vaccine availability and vaccination intention on people’s consideration of the COVID-19 vaccine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    14. Ward, George, 2015. "Is happiness a predictor of election results?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 61698, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Jonathon M. Clegg, 2016. "Perception vs Reality: How Does The British Electorate Evaluate Economic Performance of Incumbent Governments In The Post War Period?," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _143, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    16. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    17. Rudolph, Lukas & Freitag, Markus & Thurner, Paul, 2021. "The Comparative Legitimacy of Arms Exports - A Conjoint Experiment in Germany and France," SocArXiv r73pv, Center for Open Science.
    18. Ardanaz, Martín & Hallerberg, Mark & Scartascini, Carlos, 2020. "Fiscal consolidations and electoral outcomes in emerging economies: Does the policy mix matter? Macro and micro level evidence from Latin America," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    19. Lim, Sijeong & Dolsak, Nives & Prakash, Aseem & Tanaka, Seiki, 2022. "Distributional concerns and public opinion: EV subsidies in the U.S. and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    20. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.

    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:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11077-020-09408-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.