IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/23013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Politicians' social welfare criteria - An experiment with German legislators

Author

Listed:
  • Ambuehl, Sandro
  • Blesse, Sebastian
  • Doerrenberg, Philipp
  • Feldhaus, Christoph
  • Ockenfels, Axel

Abstract

Much economic analysis derives policy recommendations based on social welfare criteria intended to model the preferences of a policy maker. Yet, little is known about policy maker's normative views in a way amenable to this use. In a behavioral experiment, we elicit German legislators' social welfare criteria unconfounded by political economy constraints. When resolving preference conflicts across individuals, politicians place substantially more importance on least-favored than on most-favored alternatives, contrasting with both common aggregation mechanisms and the equal weighting inherent in utilitarianism and the Kaldor-Hicks criterion. When resolving preference conflicts within individuals, we find no support for the commonly used 'long-run criterion' which insists that choices merit intervention only if the lure of immediacy may bias intertemporal choice. Politicians' and the public's social welfare criteria largely coincide.

Suggested Citation

  • Ambuehl, Sandro & Blesse, Sebastian & Doerrenberg, Philipp & Feldhaus, Christoph & Ockenfels, Axel, 2023. "Politicians' social welfare criteria - An experiment with German legislators," ZEW Discussion Papers 23-013, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:23013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/273395/1/185208233X.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexander W Cappelen & Johanna Mollerstrom & Bjørn-Atle Reme & Bertil Tungodden, 2022. "A Meritocratic Origin of Egalitarian Behaviour," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(646), pages 2101-2117.
    2. Matthew Rabin & Ted O'Donoghue, 1999. "Doing It Now or Later," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 103-124, March.
    3. Ingvild Almås & Alexander W. Cappelen & Bertil Tungodden, 2020. "Cutthroat Capitalism versus Cuddly Socialism: Are Americans More Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking than Scandinavians?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1753-1788.
    4. Hunt Allcott & Benjamin B Lockwood & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2019. "Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(3), pages 1557-1626.
    5. Raymond Fisman & Nikolaj A. Harmon & Emir Kamenica & Inger Munk, 2015. "Labor Supply Of Politicians," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(5), pages 871-905, October.
    6. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim, 2021. "Interpreting the will of the people: social preferences over ordinal outcomes," ECON - Working Papers 395, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jan 2024.
    7. Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2013. "Economic Experts versus Average Americans," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 636-642, May.
    8. Sheffer, Lior & Loewen, Peter John & Soroka, Stuart & Walgrave, Stefaan & Sheafer, Tamir, 2018. "Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 302-321, May.
    9. Enrique Fatas & Tibor Neugebauer & Pilar Tamborero, 2007. "How Politicians Make Decisions: A Political Choice Experiment," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 167-196, October.
    10. Jonathan Heathcote & Kjetil Storesletten & Giovanni L Violante, 2020. "Presidential Address 2019: How Should Tax Progressivity Respond to Rising Income Inequality?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(6), pages 2715-2754.
    11. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "What Motivates Paternalism? An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(3), pages 787-830, March.
    12. Daniel M. Butler & David E. Broockman, 2011. "Do Politicians Racially Discriminate Against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 463-477, July.
    13. Broockman, David E. & Skovron, Christopher, 2018. "Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion among Political Elites," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 542-563, August.
    14. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2007. "Welfare without Happiness," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 471-476, May.
    15. Jacobs, Bas & Jongen, Egbert L.W. & Zoutman, Floris T., 2017. "Revealed social preferences of Dutch political parties," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 81-100.
    16. Fisman, Raymond & Jakiela, Pamela & Kariv, Shachar, 2017. "Distributional preferences and political behavior," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1-10.
    17. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David B. Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2017. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," NBER Working Papers 23943, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Gruber, Jonathan & Koszegi, Botond, 2004. "Tax incidence when individuals are time-inconsistent: the case of cigarette excise taxes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(9-10), pages 1959-1987, August.
    19. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    20. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim, 2021. "Interpreting the Will of the People: A Positive Analysis of Ordinal Preference Aggregation," NBER Working Papers 29389, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Jonathan Heathcote & Kjetil Storesletten & Giovanni L. Violante, 2020. "How Should Tax Progressivity Respond to Rising Income Inequality?," NBER Working Papers 28006, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Juhani T. Linnainmaa & Brian T. Melzer & Alessandro Previtero, 2021. "The Misguided Beliefs of Financial Advisors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(2), pages 587-621, April.
    23. Stefano DellaVigna & Ulrike Malmendier, 2004. "Contract Design and Self-Control: Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 353-402.
    24. Ackfeld, Viola & Ockenfels, Axel, 2021. "Do people intervene to make others behave prosocially?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 58-72.
    25. Heinemann Friedrich & Janeba Eckhard, 2011. "Viewing Tax Policy Through Party-Colored Glasses: What German Politicians Believe," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 12(3), pages 286-311, August.
    26. Daniel M. Butler & Adam M. Dynes, 2016. "How Politicians Discount the Opinions of Constituents with Whom They Disagree," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(4), pages 975-989, October.
    27. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2017. "Political selection under alternative electoral rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 257-281, June.
    28. Gaertner, Wulf, 2009. "A Primer in Social Choice Theory: Revised Edition," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199565306.
    29. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim, 2021. "Interpreting the Will of the People - A Positive Analysis of Ordinal Preference Aggregation," CESifo Working Paper Series 9317, CESifo.
    30. Lee, Nathan & Nyhan, Brendan & Reifler, Jason & Flynn, D. J., 2021. "More Accurate, But No Less Polarized: Comparing the Factual Beliefs of Government Officials and the Public – CORRIGENDUM," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 1323-1323, July.
    31. 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.
    32. Lee, Nathan & Nyhan, Brendan & Reifler, Jason & Flynn, D. J., 2021. "More Accurate, But No Less Polarized: Comparing the Factual Beliefs of Government Officials and the Public," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 1315-1322, July.
    33. Sheffer, Lior & Loewen, Peter John & Soroka, Stuart & Walgrave, Stefaan & Sheafer, Tamir, 2018. "Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians - CORRIGENDUM," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 428-428, May.
    34. Hausman,Daniel & McPherson,Michael & Satz,Debra, 2016. "Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781316610886.
    35. Butler, Daniel M. & Nickerson, David W., 2011. "Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 6(1), pages 55-83, August.
    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. Sandro Ambuehl & Sebastian Blesse & Philipp Doerrenberg & Christoph Feldhaus & Axel Ockenfels, 2023. "Politicians' Social Welfare Criteria: An Experiment with German Legislators," CESifo Working Paper Series 10329, CESifo.
    2. Roberto Brunetti & Matthieu Pourieux, 2023. "Representative Policy-Makers? A Behavioral Experiment with French Politicians," Working Papers 2319, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    3. 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.
    4. Barbara Vis & Sjoerd Stolwijk, 2021. "Conducting quantitative studies with the participation of political elites: best practices for designing the study and soliciting the participation of political elites," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1281-1317, August.
    5. Campos-Mercade, Pol & Meier, Armando N. & Schneider, Florian H. & Wengström, Erik, 2021. "Prosociality predicts health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    6. Matías Strehl Pessina, 2022. "Sectores de altos ingresos y preferencias por redistribución," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 22-15, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    7. 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).
    8. Tobias König & Renke Schmacker, 2022. "Preferences for Sin Taxes," CESifo Working Paper Series 10046, CESifo.
    9. Kulati, Ellam & Myck, Michał & Pasini, Giacomo, 2023. "Temporal discounting in later life," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 87-101.
    10. Jing Ai & Lin Zhao & Wei Zhu, 2016. "Contracting with Present-Biased Consumers in Insurance Markets," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 41(2), pages 107-148, September.
    11. Maria Alessandra Antonelli & Valeria De Bonis & Angelo Castaldo & Alessandrao Gandolfo, 2022. "Sin goods taxation: an encompassing model," Public Finance Research Papers 52, Istituto di Economia e Finanza, DSGE, Sapienza University of Rome.
    12. Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Dahmann, Sarah C. & Kamhöfer, Daniel A. & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2022. "The Determinants of Population Self-Control," IZA Discussion Papers 15175, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Ferey, Antoine & Haufler, Andreas & Perroni, Carlo, 2023. "Incentives, globalization, and redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    14. Bartoš, Vojtěch & Bauer, Michal & Cahlíková, Jana & Chytilová, Julie, 2021. "Covid-19 crisis and hostility against foreigners," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    15. Eva Ranehill & Roberto A. Weber, 2022. "Gender preference gaps and voting for redistribution," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 845-875, June.
    16. Gill, Andrej & Hett, Florian & Tischer, Johannes, 2022. "Time inconsistency and overdraft use: Evidence from transaction data and behavioral measurement experiments," Discussion Papers 18/2022, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    17. Caliendo, Frank N. & Findley, T. Scott, 2019. "Commitment and welfare," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 210-234.
    18. Tim Friehe & Markus Pannenberg, 2020. "Time preferences and political regimes: evidence from reunified Germany," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 349-387, January.
    19. Rao, Raghunath Singh & Irwin, Julie & Liu, Zhuping, 2020. "Flying with a net, and without: Preventative devices and self-control," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 521-543.
    20. Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Gürerk, Özgür & Yahşi, Mustafa, 2021. "Culture and prevalence of sanctioning institutions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 92(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Positive welfare economics; politicians; preference aggregation; paternalism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D6 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics

    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:zewdip:23013. 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/zemande.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.