IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/zbw/sfustu/320370.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Internationaler Gerechtigkeitsindex: Betrachtungen von sechs Dimensionen in 34 Ländern

Author

Listed:
  • Enste, Dominik
  • Gabel, Rebecca
  • Potthoff, Jennifer

Abstract

Der vorliegende internationale Gerechtigkeitsindex zeigt, dass Deutschland trotz wirtschaftlicher Krisen, unkontrollierter Zuwanderung, demografischem Wandel sowie der Transformation der Wirtschaft durch Digitalisierung, Dekarbonisierung und Deglobalisierung im internationalen Vergleich kein grundsätzliches Gerechtigkeitsproblem hat. Diese Studie liefert eine vergleichende, quantitative Untersuchung auf Basis von objektiven Daten der OECD, der Weltbank und Eurostat. Auf dieser Datenbasis ermittelt sie anhand von 43 Indikatoren einen internationalen Gerechtigkeitsindex. Ergänzend zu den statistischen Werten, die das tatsächliche Gerechtigkeitsniveau der verschiedenen Länder darstellen, wird die Wahrnehmung der deutschen Bevölkerung zu den Gerechtigkeitsdimensionen in einer quotenrepräsentativen Umfrage abgefragt. Die Wahrnehmung der Bevölkerung wird mit den objektiv gemessenen Daten kontrastiert. Laut internationalem Gerechtigkeitsindex liegt die Bundesrepublik hinter den skandinavischen Wohlfahrtsstaaten in den Top 10 von 34 untersuchten Staaten. Das Gerechtigkeitsniveau hat sich in den letzten zehn Jahren (2014-2024) kaum verändert und ist stabil geblieben. Das skandinavische Modell liegt durchgehend auf dem höchsten Niveau, während die rudimentären Marktmodelle Südeuropas stets am schlechtesten abschneiden. Deutschland befindet sich ähnlich wie der Durchschnitt der sozial ausgerichteten Marktwirtschaften Kontinentaleuropas konstant im Mittelfeld. Die kapitalistischen Systeme angelsächsischer Prägung und die postsozialistischen Marktwirtschaften bewegen sich im unteren Bereich des Gerechtigkeitsindex.

Suggested Citation

  • Enste, Dominik & Gabel, Rebecca & Potthoff, Jennifer, 2025. "Internationaler Gerechtigkeitsindex: Betrachtungen von sechs Dimensionen in 34 Ländern," Studien, Stiftung Familienunternehmen / Foundation for Family Businesses, number 320370.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:sfustu:320370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/320370/1/1926458117.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernesto Dal Bó & Pedro Dal Bó & Erik Eyster, 2018. "The Demand for Bad Policy when Voters Underappreciate Equilibrium Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 964-998.
    2. Gabel, Rebecca & Potthoff, Jennifer, 2024. "Nachhaltigkeit steigt durch Freiheit statt durch Regulierung und Verbote," IW-Kurzberichte 84/2024, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute.
    3. Dominik H. Enste & Alexandra Haferkamp & Detlef Fetchenhauer, 2009. "Unterschiede im Denken zwischen Ökonomen und Laien – Erklärungsansätze zur Verbesserung der wirtschaftspolitischen Beratung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10(1), pages 60-78, February.
    4. Vincent Charles & Tatiana Gherman & Juan Carlos Paliza, 2022. "The Gini Index: A Modern Measure of Inequality," Springer Books, in: Vincent Charles & Ali Emrouznejad (ed.), Modern Indices for International Economic Diplomacy, chapter 0, pages 55-84, Springer.
    5. Gërxhani, Klarita & Cichocki, Stanisław, 2023. "Formal and informal institutions: understanding the shadow economy in transition countries," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(5), pages 656-672, October.
    6. Alexander W. Cappelen & Ulrik H. Nielsen & Bertil Tungodden & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Fairness is intuitive," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 727-740, December.
    7. Bryan Caplan, 2007. "Introduction to The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies," Introductory Chapters, in: The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, Princeton University Press.
    8. Khatab Alqararah, 2023. "Assessing the robustness of composite indicators: the case of the Global Innovation Index," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    9. Issaka Dialga & Le Thi Hang Giang, 2016. "Highlighting Methodological Limitations in the Steps of Composite Indicators Construction," Post-Print hal-04295694, HAL.
    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. Lergetporer, Philipp & Woessmann, Ludger, 2023. "Earnings information and public preferences for university tuition: Evidence from representative experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    2. Ewald, Jens & Sterner, Thomas & Sterner, Erik, 2022. "Understanding the resistance to carbon taxes: Drivers and barriers among the general public and fuel-tax protesters," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    3. Mishagina, Natalia & Montmarquette, Claude, 2021. "The role of beliefs in supporting economic policies: The case of the minimum wage," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 1059-1087.
    4. André de Palma & Gordon M. Myers & Yorgos Y. Papageorgiou, 2023. "Imperfect public choice," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(4), pages 1413-1429, November.
    5. André de Palma & Gordon M. Myers & Yorgos Y. Papageorgiou, 2020. "Models of Imperfect Public Choice," Department of Economics Working Papers 2020-18, McMaster University.
    6. Blesse, Sebastian & Heinemann, Friedrich & Krieger, Tommy, 2021. "Informationsdefizite als Hindernis rationaler Wirtschaftspolitik: Ausmass, Ursachen und Gegenstrategien. Eine Studie mit Unterstützung der Brigitte Strube Stiftung," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 241989.
    7. Juan Pablo Atal & José Ignacio Cuesta & Felipe González & Cristóbal Otero, 2024. "The Economics of the Public Option: Evidence from Local Pharmaceutical Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(3), pages 615-644, March.
    8. Anthony J. Evans, 2016. "The unintended consequences of easy money: How access to finance impedes entrepreneurship," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 29(3), pages 233-252, September.
    9. Astrid Dannenberg & Carlo Gallier, 2020. "The choice of institutions to solve cooperation problems: a survey of experimental research," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 716-749, September.
    10. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Garagnani, Michele, 2020. "The cognitive foundations of cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 71-85.
    11. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    12. Dwight R. Lee & Ryan H. Murphy, 2017. "An expressive voting model of anger, hatred, harm and shame," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 307-323, December.
    13. Volker Arnold, 2009. "Vom Sollen zum Wollen –über neuere Entwicklungen in der Wirtschaftsethik," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10(3), pages 253-265, August.
    14. Philippe Jehiel, 2022. "Analogy-Based Expectation Equilibrium and Related Concepts:Theory, Applications, and Beyond," Working Papers halshs-03735680, HAL.
    15. Elert, Niklas & Henrekson, Magnus, 2017. "Entrepreneurship and Institutions: A Bidirectional Relationship," Working Paper Series 1153, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 05 May 2017.
    16. repec:jpe:journl:1323 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Francesco Drago & Roberto Galbiati & Francesco Sobbrio, 2020. "The Political Cost of Being Soft on Crime: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(6), pages 3305-3336.
    18. Timothy Johnson, 2015. "Reciprocity as a Foundation of Financial Economics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 43-67, September.
    19. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
    20. Jo Thori Lind & Dominic Rohner, 2017. "Knowledge is Power: A Theory of Information, Income and Welfare Spending," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(336), pages 611-646, October.
    21. André de Palma & Gordon M. Myers & Yorgos Y. Papageorgiou, 2022. "PoolLines: Imperfect Public Choice," THEMA Working Papers 2022-25, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sfustu:320370. 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://www.familienunternehmen.de/ .

    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.