IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/20145.html

The Distributional Preferences of Americans

Author

Listed:
  • Raymond Fisman
  • Pamela Jakiela
  • Shachar Kariv

Abstract

We measure the distributional preferences of a large, diverse sample of Americans by embedding modified dictator games that vary the relative price of redistribution in the American Life Panel. Subjects' choices are generally consistent with maximizing a (social) utility function. We decompose distributional preferences into two distinct components - fair-mindedness (tradeoffs between oneself and others) and equality-efficiency tradeoffs - by estimating constant elasticity of substitution utility functions at the individual level. Approximately equal numbers of Americans have equality-focused and efficiency-focused distributional preferences. After controlling for individual characteristics, our experimental measures of equality-efficiency tradeoffs predict the political decisions of our subjects.

Suggested Citation

  • Raymond Fisman & Pamela Jakiela & Shachar Kariv, 2014. "The Distributional Preferences of Americans," NBER Working Papers 20145, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:20145
    Note: PE POL
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20145.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Syngjoo Choi & Shachar Kariv & Wieland M?ller & Dan Silverman, 2014. "Who Is (More) Rational?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(6), pages 1518-1550, June.
    2. 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.
    3. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iatskih21 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ruben Durante & Louis Putterman & Joël Weele, 2014. "Preferences For Redistribution And Perception Of Fairness: An Experimental Study," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 1059-1086, August.
    5. Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2007. "Consistency and Heterogeneity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1921-1938, December.
    6. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    7. Varian, Hal R, 1982. "The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 945-973, July.
    8. Charles Bellemare & Sabine Kröger & Arthur van Soest, 2008. "Measuring Inequity Aversion in a Heterogeneous Population Using Experimental Decisions and Subjective Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 815-839, July.
    9. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(4), pages 309-309.
    10. Alesina, Alberto & La Ferrara, Eliana, 2005. "Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 897-931, June.
    11. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iatskih21 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2016. "Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights for Optimal Tax Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 24-45, January.
    13. David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2014. "Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 195-223, July.
    14. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    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. Fisman, Raymond & Jakiela, Pamela & Kariv, Shachar, 2017. "Distributional preferences and political behavior," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Heufer, Jan & Shachat, Jason & Xu, Yan, 2025. "Measuring tastes for equity and aggregate wealth behind the veil of ignorance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 209-232.
    3. Raymond Fisman & Pamela Jakiela & Shachar Kariv & Silvia Vannutelli, 2023. "The distributional preferences of Americans, 2013–2016," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(4), pages 727-748, September.
    4. van Bruggen, Paul & Heufer, Jan, 2017. "Afriat in the lab," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 546-550.
    5. Fehr, Dietmar & Müller, Daniel & Preuss, Marcel, 2024. "Social mobility perceptions and inequality acceptance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 366-384.
    6. Fehr, Ernst & Epper, Thomas & Senn, Julien, 2022. "Other-Regarding Preferences and Redistributive Politics," IZA Discussion Papers 15088, IZA Network @ LISER.
    7. 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.
    8. Dziewulski, Paweł & Lanier, Joshua & Quah, John K.-H., 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: A survey," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    9. Yoram Halevy & Dotan Persitz & Lanny Zrill, 2018. "Parametric Recoverability of Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1558-1593.
    10. Mingshi Chen & Tracy Xiao Liu & You Shan & Shu Wang & Songfa Zhong & Yanju Zhou, 2025. "How General Are Measures of Choice Consistency? Evidence from Experimental and Scanner Data," Papers 2505.05275, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2025.
    11. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Combs, T. Dalton & Kodaverdian, Niree, 2019. "Consistency in simple vs. complex choices by younger and older adults," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 580-601.
    12. Dziewulski, Paweł, 2020. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency index," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    13. Pawel Dziewulski, 2018. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency," Economics Series Working Papers 848, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    14. Dziewulski, Paweł, 2025. "A revealed preference approach to approximate utility maximisation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    15. Pawel Dziewulski, 2021. "A comprehensive revealed preference approach to approximate utility maximisation," Working Paper Series 0621, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    16. Federico Echenique, 2020. "New Developments in Revealed Preference Theory: Decisions Under Risk, Uncertainty, and Intertemporal Choice," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 299-316, August.
    17. Fisman, Raymond & Jakiela, Pamela & Kariv, Shachar, 2015. "How did distributional preferences change during the Great Recession?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 84-95.
    18. Allen, Roy & Dziewulski, Paweł & Rehbeck, John, 2022. "Making sense of monkey business: Re-examining tests of animal rationality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 220-228.
    19. Mir Adnan Mahmood & John Rehbeck, 2022. "Correcting for Random Budgets in Revealed Preference Experiments," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, April.
    20. Uttara Balakrishnan & Johannes Haushofer & Pamela Jakiela, 2020. "How soon is now? Evidence of present bias from convex time budget experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 294-321, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers

    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:nbr:nberwo:20145. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.