IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/7530.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Choosing from the Reform Menu Card: Individual Determinants of Labour Market Policy Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Hennighausen, Tanja
  • Bischoff, Ivo
  • Heinemann, Friedrich

Abstract

This contribution empirically explores the drivers of labour market reform acceptance for the individual level in Germany. For that purpose we make use of the representative German General Social Survey (ALLBUS). This survey offers data to which extent individuals support benefit cuts, longer working years, cutting subsidies to declining industries, phasing out of employment programmes or a liberalisation of employment protection. Our theoretical considerations suggest that self-interest, information, fairness judgements, economic beliefs and other individual factors such as socialisation under the communist regime in the former German Democratic Republic drive individual reform preferences. Our empirical results support this notion: While we find self-interest to be an important driving force, our results show that a number of factors well beyond the narrow scope of self-interest strongly shape individual reform preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Hennighausen, Tanja & Bischoff, Ivo & Heinemann, Friedrich, 2009. "Choosing from the Reform Menu Card: Individual Determinants of Labour Market Policy Preferences," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-004, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:7530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/27623/1/dp09004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dolan, Paul & Edlin, Richard & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan, 2007. "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it: Characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 157-170, September.
    2. Konow, James, 2001. "Fair and square: the four sides of distributive justice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 137-164, October.
    3. Anand, Paul, 2001. "Procedural fairness in economic and social choice: Evidence from a survey of voters," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 247-270, April.
    4. Michael Neugart, 2008. "The choice of insurance in the labor market," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 445-462, March.
    5. Delaney, Liam & O'Toole, Francis, 2008. "Individual, household and gender preferences for social transfers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 348-359, June.
    6. Faravelli, Marco, 2007. "How context matters: A survey based experiment on distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1399-1422, August.
    7. Corneo, Giacomo & Gruner, Hans Peter, 2002. "Individual preferences for political redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 83-107, January.
    8. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(2), pages 699-746.
    9. Alberto Alesina & George-Marios Angeletos, 2005. "Fairness and Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 960-980, September.
    10. Meier-Pesti, Katja & Penz, Elfriede, 2008. "Sex or gender? Expanding the sex-based view by introducing masculinity and femininity as predictors of financial risk taking," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 180-196, April.
    11. Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2006. "Religion and social preferences: An experimental study," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 60-67, January.
    12. Tito Boeri & J. Ignacio Conde-Ruiz & Vincenzo Galasso, "undated". "Cross-skill Redistribution and the Tradeoff between Unemployment Benefits and Employment Protection," Working Papers 2004-26, FEDEA.
    13. Bryan Caplan, 2002. "Systematically Biased Beliefs About Economics: Robust Evidence of Judgemental Anomalies from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(479), pages 433-458, April.
    14. Saint-Paul, Gilles, 2000. "The Political Economy of Labour Market Institutions," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198293323.
    15. Pitlik, Hans & Wirth, Steffen, 2003. "Do crises promote the extent of economic liberalization?: an empirical test," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 565-581, September.
    16. Fuchs-Schundeln, Nicola & Alesina, Alberto, 2007. "Good-Bye Lenin (Or Not?): The Effect of Communism on People's Preferences," Scholarly Articles 4553032, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    17. 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.
    18. Robert J. Blendon, 1997. "Bridging the Gap between the Public's and Economists' Views of the Economy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 105-118, Summer.
    19. Hennighausen, Tanja & Heinemann, Friedrich & Bischoff, Ivo, 2008. "Individual Determinants of Social Fairness Assessments: The Case of Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-063, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    20. Fong, Christina, 2001. "Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 225-246, November.
    21. Baron, Jonathan & Kemp, Simon, 2004. "Support for trade restrictions, attitudes, and understanding of comparative advantage," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 565-580, October.
    22. Tito Boeri & Axel Boersch-Supan & Guido Tabellini, 2002. "Pension Reforms and the Opinions of European Citizens," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 396-401, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephan Dlugosz & Gesine Stephan & Ralf A. Wilke, "undated". "Fixing the leak: Unemployment incidence before and after the 2006 reform of unemployment benefits in Germany," Discussion Papers 09/10, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    2. Friedrich Heinemann & Theocharis Grigoriadis, 2016. "Origins of reform resistance and the Southern European regime," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 43(4), pages 661-691, November.
    3. Hans Pitlik & Gerhard Schwarz & Barbara Bechter & Bernd Brandl, 2011. "Near Is My Shirt but Nearer Is My Skin: Ideology or Self‐Interest as Determinants of Public Opinion on Fiscal Policy Issues," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 271-290, May.
    4. Stiftung Familienunternehmen (ed.), 2012. "Der Weg zu einer "Agenda 2030": Reformen zwischen objektiver Notwendigkeit und individueller Verweigerung," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research, number 110562, May.
    5. Vaubel Roland, 2010. "Freiheit in Deutschland: Wettbewerb der Staaten, Einfluss der Kirche, amerikanisches Erbe – Versuch einer historischen Erklärung – / Freedom in Germany: Interjurisdictional Competition, the Influence ," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 61(1), pages 53-74, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    labour market reform; economic beliefs; fairness preferences; ALLBUS;

    JEL classification:

    • A13 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Social Values
    • J48 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Particular Labor Markets; Public Policy
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • C42 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Survey Methods

    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:7530. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.