IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/baf/cbafwp/cbafwp21168.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

In Medio Stat Virtus? Effective Communication and Preferences for Redistribution in Hard Times

Author

Listed:
  • Paola Bertoli
  • Veronica Grembi
  • Massimo Morelli
  • Anna Rosso

Abstract

This paper evaluates the effects of statistical information on the propensity to favor a specific group of recipients when allocating a scarce public resource. We refer to scarce resource with reference to the COVID-19 emergency: allocation of the first round of vaccine and the allocation of financial resources provided by the Italian national government to fight the economic emergency triggered by the pandemic. Randomly allocating the information through an online experiment, we show that treated respondents tend to prioritize the group targeted by the information, and they are more likely to do so if they are "in the middle", in terms of age, political preferences, religiosity and education.

Suggested Citation

  • Paola Bertoli & Veronica Grembi & Massimo Morelli & Anna Rosso, 2021. "In Medio Stat Virtus? Effective Communication and Preferences for Redistribution in Hard Times," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 21168, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    • Handle: RePEc:baf:cbafwp:cbafwp21168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.unibocconi.it/baffic/baf/papers/cbafwp21168.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jared Barton & Marco Castillo & Ragan Petrie, 2014. "What Persuades Voters? A Field Experiment on Political Campaigning," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(574), pages 293-326, February.
    2. Winterbottom, Anna & Bekker, Hilary L. & Conner, Mark & Mooney, Andrew, 2008. "Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2079-2088, December.
    3. Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & West, Martin R. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "How information affects support for education spending: Evidence from survey experiments in Germany and the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 138-157.
    4. Christina M. Fong & Erzo F. P. Luttmer, 2009. "What Determines Giving to Hurricane Katrina Victims? Experimental Evidence on Racial Group Loyalty," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 64-87, April.
    5. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 699-746.
    6. Roth, Christopher & Settele, Sonja & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2022. "Beliefs about public debt and the demand for government spending," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 165-187.
    7. Mellacher, Patrick, 2023. "The impact of corona populism: Empirical evidence from Austria and theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 113-140.
    8. Mounir Karadja & Johanna Mollerstrom & David Seim, 2017. "Richer (and Holier) Than Thou? The Effect of Relative Income Improvements on Demand for Redistribution," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(2), pages 201-212, May.
    9. Morelli, Massimo & Boeri, Tito & Gamalerio, Matteo & Negri, Margherita, 2023. "Pay-as-they-get-in: Attitudes towards Migrants and Pension Systems," CEPR Discussion Papers 17991, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Alberto Alesina & Stefanie Stantcheva & Edoardo Teso, 2018. "Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 521-554, February.
    11. Giulia Giupponi & Camille Landais, 2023. "Subsidizing Labour Hoarding in Recessions: The Employment and Welfare Effects of Short-time Work," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(4), pages 1963-2005.
    12. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    13. Rene Bekkers, 2007. "Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game," Artefactual Field Experiments 00102, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Roland G FryerJr & Philipp Harms & Matthew O Jackson, 2019. "Updating Beliefs when Evidence is Open to Interpretation: Implications for Bias and Polarization," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(5), pages 1470-1501.
    15. Kevin Arceneaux & David W. Nickerson, 2009. "Who Is Mobilized to Vote? A Re‐Analysis of 11 Field Experiments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    18. Dickson, Peter R, 1982. "The Impact of Enriching Case and Statistical Information on Consumer Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(4), pages 398-406, March.
    19. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    20. Cruces, Guillermo & Perez-Truglia, Ricardo & Tetaz, Martin, 2013. "Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 100-112.
    21. Diva Dhar & Tarun Jain & Seema Jayachandran, 2022. "Reshaping Adolescents' Gender Attitudes: Evidence from a School-Based Experiment in India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(3), pages 899-927, March.
    22. David Richter & Rui Mata, 2018. "Age Differences in Intertemporal Choice: U-Shaped Associations in a Probability Sample of German Households," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 974, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    23. Peter A. Ubel & Christopher Jepson & Jonathan Baron, 2001. "The Inclusion of Patient Testimonials in Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 60-68, February.
    24. 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.
    25. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:407-424 is not listed on IDEAS
    26. Chad Kendall & Tommaso Nannicini & Francesco Trebbi, 2015. "How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 322-353, January.
    27. Alberto Ciancio & Fabrice Kämpfen & Iliana V Kohler & Daniel Bennett & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Jill Darling & Arie Kapteyn & Jürgen Maurer & Hans-Peter Kohler, 2020. "Know your epidemic, know your response: Early perceptions of COVID-19 and self-reported social distancing in the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-11, September.
    28. Paolo Nicola Barbieri & Beatrice Bonini, 2021. "Political orientation and adherence to social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(2), pages 483-504, July.
    29. Su, Siyan, 2022. "Updating politicized beliefs: How motivated reasoning contributes to polarization," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    30. Stephen Devereux, 2002. "Can Social Safety Nets Reduce Chronic Poverty?," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 20(5), pages 657-675, November.
    31. Fong, Christina, 2001. "Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 225-246, November.
    32. Jung Ki Kim & Eileen M Crimmins, 2020. "How does age affect personal and social reactions to COVID-19: Results from the national Understanding America Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, November.
    33. Boeri, Tito Michele & Gamalerio, Matteo & Morelli, Massimo & Negri, Margherita, 2023. "Pay-as-they-get-in: attitudes towards migrants and pension systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121343, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    34. Ben-Nun Bloom, Pazit & Arikan, Gizem & Courtemanche, Marie, 2015. "Religious Social Identity, Religious Belief, and Anti-Immigration Sentiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(2), pages 203-221, May.
    35. Angela Fagerlin & Catharine Wang & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "Reducing the Influence of Anecdotal Reasoning on People’s Health Care Decisions: Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Statistics?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(4), pages 398-405, July.
    36. Robert Prasch & Falguni Sheth, 1999. "The Economics and Ethics of Minimum Wage Legislation," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(4), pages 466-487.
    37. M. Fong, Christina & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, 2011. "Truth in giving: Experimental evidence on the welfare effects of informed giving to the poor," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 436-444.
    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. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    2. Keefer, Philip & Scartascini, Carlos & Vlaicu, Razvan, 2022. "Demand-side determinants of public spending allocations: Voter trust, risk and time preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    3. Fehr Ernst & Epper Thomas & Senn Julien, 2020. "Social preferences and redistributive politics," ECON - Working Papers 339, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Aug 2023.
    4. Roth, Christopher & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2018. "Experienced inequality and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 251-262.
    5. Dietmar Fehr & Daniel Müller & Marcel Preuss, 2020. "Social Mobility Perceptions and Inequality Acceptance," Working Papers 2020-02, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    6. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Rozo, Sandra, 2021. "How Does it Feel to Be Part of the Minority?: Impacts of Perspective Taking on Prosocial Behavior," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 11599, Inter-American Development Bank.
    7. 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).
    8. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Beliefs about Racial Discrimination and Support for Pro-Black Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 40-53, January.
    9. Ilpo Kauppinen & Panu Poutvaara, 2019. "Preferences for Redistribution and International Migration," ifo Working Paper Series 283, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    10. Juliana Londoño-Vélez, 2022. "The Impact of Diversity on Perceptions of Income Distribution and Preferences for Redistribution," NBER Working Papers 30386, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Windsteiger, Lisa, 2022. "The redistributive consequences of segregation and misperceptions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    12. Aljosha Henkel & Ernst Fehr & Julien Senn & Thomas Epper, 2024. "Beliefs about Inequality and the Nature of Support for Redistribution," Working Papers 2024-iRisk-02, IESEG School of Management.
    13. Roth, Christopher & Settele, Sonja & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2022. "Beliefs about public debt and the demand for government spending," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 165-187.
    14. Fehr, Ernst & Epper, Thomas & Senn, Julien, 2022. "Other-Regarding Preferences and Redistributive Politics," IZA Discussion Papers 15088, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Londoño-Vélez, Juliana, 2022. "The impact of diversity on perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    16. Andreoli, Francesco & Olivera, Javier, 2020. "Preferences for redistribution and exposure to tax-benefit schemes in Europe," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    17. Cohn, Alain & Jessen, Lasse J. & Klašnja, Marko & Smeets, Paul, 2023. "Wealthy Americans and redistribution: The role of fairness preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    18. Dietmar Fehr & Johanna Mollerstrom & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2022. "Your Place in the World: Relative Income and Global Inequality," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 232-268, November.
    19. Hwang, Soo Kyeong, 2020. "Korea's preference for redistribution and the policy decisions," KDI Policy Studies 2019-01, Korea Development Institute (KDI).
    20. Starkov, Egor, 2023. "Only time will tell: Credible dynamic signaling," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Sensitivity to Information; Beliefs Update; Scarce Resources Distribution;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:baf:cbafwp:cbafwp21168. 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: Michela Pozzi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbbocit.html .

    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.