IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/73857.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leistungs- oder Bedarfsgerechtigkeit? Über einen normativen Zielkonflikt des Wohlfahrtsstaats und seiner Bedeutung für die Bewertung des eigenen Erwerbseinkommens

Author

Listed:
  • Liebig, Stefan
  • Schupp, Jürgen

Abstract

Der Beitrag analysiert den Zielkonflikt zwischen Leistungs- und Bedarfsgerechtigkeit in modernen Wohlfahrtsstaaten und das fundamentale Problem, weshalb die Abgabenund Steuerlast von den Bürgern akzeptiert wird. Es wird die Frage beantwortet, inwieweit ein auf der Makroebene der Gesellschaft bestehendes Steuerungsproblem moderner Wohlfahrtsstaaten auch in der individuellen Wahrnehmung Gerechtigkeitsprobleme erzeugt. Anhand von repräsentativen Befragungsergebnissen eines theoriegeleiteten Erhebungsmoduls der Längsschnittstudie Sozio- oekonomisches Panel (SOEP) aus den Jahren 2005 und 2007 wird untersucht, wie Erwerbstätige ihr Einkommen unter dem Aspekt der Lohngerechtigkeit bewerten und welche Bedeutung dabei wohlfahrtsstaatliche Eingriffe haben. Ein zentrales Ergebnis der Analysen stellt der vergleichsweise hohe Anteil derjenigen dar, die ihr Erwerbseinkommen als gerecht wahrnehmen. Der in der Literatur für die Makroebene der Gesellschaft konstatierte normative Zielkonflikt zwischen Leistungs- und Bedarfsgerechtigkeit scheint auf der individuellen Ebene nicht wirklich zu bestehen, wie der Beitrag sowohl theoretisch als auch empirisch zu zeigen versucht. Ein bedeutsames empirisches Ergebnis ist, dass das subjektive Empfinden gerechter Entlohnung nicht geschmälert wird durch die Abgabenbelastung des eigenen Einkommens. Auch Bezieher hoher Einkommen beurteilen ihre Einkommen keineswegs als ungerecht. Ein weiteres Ergebnis der Analysen besteht darin, dass Transferzahlungen des Staates die individuellen Ungerechtigkeitsempfindungen im Hinblick auf das eigene Einkommen nicht kompensieren können; offen erkennbare Transferzahlungen werden von den erwerbstätigen Empfängern möglicherweise als diskriminierend empfunden.

Suggested Citation

  • Liebig, Stefan & Schupp, Jürgen, 2008. "Leistungs- oder Bedarfsgerechtigkeit? Über einen normativen Zielkonflikt des Wohlfahrtsstaats und seiner Bedeutung für die Bewertung des eigenen Erwerbseinkommens," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 7-30.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:73857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/73857/1/Liebig_2008_Leistungs-Bedarfsgerechtigkeit.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    2. George A. Akerlof, 1982. "Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 97(4), pages 543-569.
    3. Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2002. "Maintenance of and Innovation in Long-Term Panel Studies: The Case of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP)," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 276, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Jacob A. Mincer, 1974. "Schooling, Experience, and Earnings," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number minc74-1, November.
    5. Fong, Christina M. & Bowles, Samuel & Gintis, Herbert, 2006. "Strong reciprocity and the welfare state," Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, in: S. Kolm & Jean Mercier Ythier (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 23, pages 1439-1464, Elsevier.
    6. van Vegchel, Natasja & de Jonge, Jan & Bosma, Hans & Schaufeli, Wilmar, 2005. "Reviewing the effort-reward imbalance model: drawing up the balance of 45 empirical studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(5), pages 1117-1131, March.
    7. Dornstein, Miriam, 1987. "Taxes: Attitudes and perceptions and their social bases," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 55-76, March.
    8. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    9. Cohen-Charash, Yochi & Spector, Paul E., 2001. "The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 278-321, November.
    10. Rick L. Williams, 2000. "A Note on Robust Variance Estimation for Cluster-Correlated Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 645-646, June.
    11. Meltzer, Allan H & Richard, Scott F, 1981. "A Rational Theory of the Size of Government," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 914-927, October.
    12. Stefan Svallfors, 2003. "Welfare Regimes and Welfare Opinions: a Comparison of Eight Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 64(3), pages 495-520, December.
    13. Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2005. "Gerechtigkeit der Einkommensbesteuerung aus Sicht der Bürger," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 72(29), pages 451-453.
    14. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    15. Achatz, Juliane & Gartner, Hermann & Glück, Timea, 2004. "Bonus oder Bias? Mechanismen geschlechtsspezifischer Entlohnung," IAB-Discussion Paper 200402, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    16. Siegrist, Johannes & Starke, Dagmar & Chandola, Tarani & Godin, Isabelle & Marmot, Michael & Niedhammer, Isabelle & Peter, Richard, 2004. "The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(8), pages 1483-1499, April.
    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. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    2. Matthias Strifler & Thomas Beissinger, 2016. "Fairness Considerations in Labor Union Wage Setting – A Theoretical Analysis," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 63(3), pages 303-330, July.
    3. Stefan Liebig & Carsten Sauer & Jürgen Schupp, 2009. "The Justice of Earnings in Dual-Earner Households," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 216, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    4. Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David B. & Sunde, Uwe, 2006. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Prevalence, Behavior and Success," IZA Discussion Papers 2205, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Brandes, Leif & Franck, Egon, 2012. "Social preferences or personal career concerns? Field evidence on positive and negative reciprocity in the workplace," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 925-939.
    6. Mario Schnalzenberger & Nicole Schneeweis & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer & Martina Zweimüller, 2014. "Job Quality and Employment of Older People in Europe," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 28(2), pages 141-162, June.
    7. Philip Du Caju & François Rycx & Ilan Tojerow, 2011. "Inter‐Industry Wage Differentials: How Much Does Rent Sharing Matter?," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 79(4), pages 691-717, July.
    8. Sauermann, Jan, 2015. "Worker Reciprocity and the Returns to Training: Evidence from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 9179, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Christiane Bradler & Susanne Neckermann, 2019. "The Magic of the Personal Touch: Field Experimental Evidence on Money and Appreciation as Gifts," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1189-1221, July.
    10. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    11. Piopiunik, Marc & Schwerdt, Guido & Woessmann, Ludger, 2013. "Central school exit exams and labor-market outcomes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 93-108.
    12. Sliwka, Dirk & Werner, Peter, 2016. "How Do Agents React to Dynamic Wage Increases? An Experimental Study," IZA Discussion Papers 9855, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Falk, Armin & Menrath, Ingo & Verde, Pablo Emilio & Siegrist, Johannes, 2011. "Cardiovascular Consequences of Unfair Pay," IZA Discussion Papers 5720, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Ben-Ner, Avner & Putterman, Louis & Kong, Fanmin & Magan, Dan, 2004. "Reciprocity in a two-part dictator game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 333-352, March.
    15. Alison Preston, 1997. "Where Are We Now With Human Capital Theory in Australia?," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 73(220), pages 51-78, March.
    16. Andreas Nicklisch & Tobias Salz, 2008. "Reciprocity and status in a virtual field experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_37, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    17. Takanori Sumino, 2016. "Level or Concentration? A Cross-national Analysis of Public Attitudes Towards Taxation Policies," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 1115-1134, December.
    18. Florian Englmaier & Stephen Leider, 2020. "Managerial Payoff and Gift-Exchange in the Field," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(2), pages 259-280, March.
    19. Laméris, Maite D. & Garretsen, Harry & Jong-A-Pin, Richard, 2020. "Political ideology and the intragenerational prospect of upward mobility," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    20. Dur, Robert & Roelfsema, Hein, 2010. "Social exchange and common agency in organizations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-63, January.

    More about this item

    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:espost:73857. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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/zbwkide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.