IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/cbscwp/323.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Private sanctions

Author

Listed:
  • Hart, Oliver D.
  • Thesmar, David
  • Zingales, Luigi

Abstract

We survey a representative sample of the U.S. population to understand stakeholders' desire to see their firms exit Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. 61% of respondents think that firms should exit Russia, regardless of the consequences. Only 37% think that leaving Russia is a purely business decision. If a firm does not conform with these desires, 66% of the respondents are willing to boycott it. This desire diminishes with the costs they face in boycotting. At $500, 43% would want to boycott. Our model is able to explain up to 24% of the cross-sectional variability in attitudes to boycotting. Nevertheless, it is difficult to separate deontological and consequentialist motives to boycott, because subjects' beliefs are highly correlated with values. When we randomize the beliefs we find a strong effect for shareholders, but not for the other stakeholders. We discuss what are the geopolitical and economic implications of a world where private corporations discontinue profitable business relationships for moral or political reasons.

Suggested Citation

  • Hart, Oliver D. & Thesmar, David & Zingales, Luigi, 2022. "Private sanctions," Working Papers 323, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:cbscwp:323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/266348/1/1818219468.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2021. "Understanding Tax Policy: How do People Reason?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2309-2369.
    3. Augustin Landier & David Thesmar, 2022. "Who is Neoliberal? Durkheimian Individualism and Support for Market Mechanisms," NBER Working Papers 29942, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Javier Olivera & Philippe Kerm, 2022. "Public support for tax policies in COVID-19 times: evidence from Luxembourg," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(6), pages 1395-1418, December.
    2. Lobeck, Max & Morten.Stostad@nhh.no, Morten Nyborg, 2023. "The Consequences of Inequality: Beliefs and Redistributive Preferences," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 17/2023, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    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. Fabienne Cantner & Geske Rolvering, 2022. "Does information help to overcome public resistance to carbon prices? Evidence from an information provision experiment," Working Papers 219, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    5. Jordi Brandts & Isabel Busom & Cristina Lopez-Mayan, 2024. "Do voice and social information contribute to changing views about rent control policy?," IREA Working Papers 202405, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Feb 2024.
    6. Max Lobeck & Morten Nyborg Støstad, 2023. "The Consequences of Inequality: Beliefs and Redistributive Preferences," CESifo Working Paper Series 10710, CESifo.
    7. Busso, Matias & Ibáñez, Ana María & Messina, Julián & Quigua, Juliana, 2023. "Preferences for redistribution in Latin America," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120687, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. David Hope & Julian Limberg & Nina Weber, 2023. "Technological Change, Task Complexity, and Preferences for Redistribution," ifo Working Paper Series 398, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    9. Dorine Boumans & Klaus Gründler & Niklas Potrafke & Fabian Ruthardt, 2022. "Political Leaders and Macroeconomic Expectations: Evidence from a Global Survey Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 9974, CESifo.
    10. Licia Bobzien, 2023. "Income Inequality and Political Trust: Do Fairness Perceptions Matter?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 505-528, September.
    11. Begoña Cabeza; & Shaun Da Costa;, 2023. "Taxation for development: the impact of the Ebola epidemic on citizen support across Western Africa," Working Papers 2307, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    12. Hope, David & Limberg, Julian & Weber, Nina, 2023. "Why do (some) ordinary Americans support tax cuts for the rich? Evidence from a randomised survey experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    13. Riccardo Bruni & Alessandro Gioffré & Maria Marino, 2022. ""In-group bias in preferences for redistribution: a survey experiment in Italy"," IREA Working Papers 202223, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Nov 2023.
    14. Jeffrey, Karen, 2021. "Automation and the future of work: How rhetoric shapes the response in policy preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 417-433.
    15. Hope, David & Limberg, Julian & Weber, Nina Sophie, 2021. "Why Do (Some) Ordinary Americans Support Tax Cuts for the Rich? Evidence From a Randomized Survey Experiment," SocArXiv chk9b, Center for Open Science.
    16. de Bresser, Jochem & Knoef, Marike, 2022. "Eliciting preferences for income redistribution: A new survey item," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    17. Liscow, Zachary & Fox, Edward, 2022. "The psychology of taxing capital income: Evidence from a survey experiment on the realization rule," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    18. Andrea Fazio, 2021. "Beautiful inequality: Are beautiful people more willing to redistribute?," Working Papers in Public Economics 194, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Economics and Law.
    19. Peter Andre, 2021. "Shallow Meritocracy: An Experiment on Fairness Views," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 115, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    20. Peter Andre, 2022. "Shallow Meritocracy," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2022_318v3, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:cbscwp:323. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/gsuchus.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.