IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zur/econwp/471.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Interventionist preferences and the welfare state: the case of in-kind aid

Author

Listed:
  • Sandro Ambuehl
  • B. Douglas Bernheim
  • Tony Q. Fan
  • Zach Freitas-Groff

Abstract

Why is in-kind aid a prominent feature of welfare systems? We present a lab-in-the-field experiment involving members of the general U.S. population and SNAP recipients. After documenting a widespread desire to limit recipients’ choices, we quantify the relative importance of (i) welfarist motives, (ii) utility or disutility derived from curtailing another’s autonomy, and (iii) absolutist attitudes concerning the appropriate form of aid. Choices primarily reflect the two non-welfarist motives. Because people systematically misperceive recipient preferences, their interventions are more restrictive than they intend. Interventionist preferences and non-welfarist motives are more pronounced among the political right, particularly when recipients are black.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim & Tony Q. Fan & Zach Freitas-Groff, 2025. "Interventionist preferences and the welfare state: the case of in-kind aid," ECON - Working Papers 471, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    • Handle: RePEc:zur:econwp:471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/278410/1/econwp471.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justine Hastings & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2018. "How Are SNAP Benefits Spent? Evidence from a Retail Panel," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3493-3540, December.
    2. Zachary Liscow & Abigail Pershing, 2022. "Why Is So Much Redistribution In-Kind and Not in Cash? Evidence from a Survey Experiment," National Tax Journal, University of Chicago Press, vol. 75(2), pages 313-354.
    3. Rebecca Diamond & Enrico Moretti, 2021. "Where is Standard of Living the Highest? Local Prices and the Geography of Consumption," NBER Working Papers 29533, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised May 2025.
    5. Nichols, Albert L & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1982. "Targeting Transfers through Restrictions on Recipients," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(2), pages 372-377, May.
    6. Raghava R Gundala & Anupam Singh, 2021. "What motivates consumers to buy organic foods? Results of an empirical study in the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-17, September.
    7. Hessami, Zohal & Uebelmesser, Silke, 2013. "Empirical determinants of in-kind redistribution: Partisan biases and the role of inflation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 318-320.
    8. Roland G. Fryer & Steven D. Levitt, 2004. "The Causes and Consequences of Distinctively Black Names," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 767-805.
    9. Batista, Catia & Silverman, Dan & Yang, Dean, 2015. "Directed giving: Evidence from an inter-household transfer experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 2-21.
    10. Chakravarthi Narasimhan, 1984. "A Price Discrimination Theory of Coupons," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 128-147.
    11. Sara E. Helms & Brian L. Scott & Jeremy P. Thornton, 2012. "Choosing to give more: experimental evidence on restricted gifts and charitable behaviour," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(8), pages 745-748, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Kristy Jones, 2017. "Paternalism and Ethnicity in Giving," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(302), pages 420-433, September.
    14. Delavande, Adeline & Giné, Xavier & McKenzie, David, 2011. "Measuring subjective expectations in developing countries: A critical review and new evidence," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 151-163, March.
    15. Pikulina, Elena S. & Tergiman, Chloe, 2020. "Preferences for power," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    16. Harberger, Arnold C, 1984. "Basic Needs versus Distributional Weights in Social Cost-Benefit Analysis," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(3), pages 455-474, April.
    17. Gangadharan, Lata & Grossman, Philip J. & Jones, Kristy & Leister, C. Matthew, 2018. "Paternalistic giving: Restricting recipient choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 143-170.
    18. Fong, Christina M. & Luttmer, Erzo F.P., 2011. "Do fairness and race matter in generosity? Evidence from a nationally representative charity experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5-6), pages 372-394, June.
    19. Shimp, Terence A & Kavas, Alican, 1984. "The Theory of Reasoned Action Applied to Coupon Usage," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 11(3), pages 795-809, December.
    20. James Andreoni & Deniz Aydin & Blake Barton & B. Douglas Bernheim & Jeffrey Naecker, 2020. "When Fair Isn’t Fair: Understanding Choice Reversals Involving Social Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1673-1711.
    21. Janet Currie & Firouz Gahvari, 2008. "Transfers in Cash and In-Kind: Theory Meets the Data," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(2), pages 333-383, June.
    22. B. Douglas Bernheim & Kristy Kim & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2024. "Welfare and the Act of Choosing," NBER Working Papers 32200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    23. Lucie Gadenne & Samuel Norris & Monica Singhal & Sandip Sukhtankar, 2024. "In-Kind Transfers as Insurance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(9), pages 2861-2897, September.
    24. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten Igel Lau & Elisabet E. Rutström & Melonie B. Sullivan, 2005. "Eliciting Risk And Time Preferences Using Field Experiments: Some Methodological Issues," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Field Experiments in Economics, pages 125-218, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    25. Fredric Jacobsson & Magnus Johannesson & Lars Borgquist, 2007. "Is Altruism Paternalistic?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(520), pages 761-781, April.
    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 & B. Douglas Bernheim & Axel Ockenfels, 2019. "Projective Paternalism," CESifo Working Paper Series 7762, CESifo.
    2. Pamela Campa & Lucija Muehlenbachs, 2024. "Addressing Environmental Justice through In-Kind Court Settlements," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 415-446, February.
    3. Cristina Cattaneo & Daniela Grieco & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2024. "Out-group Penalties in Refugee Assistance: A Survey Experiment," NBER Working Papers 32139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised May 2025.
    5. Ethan M. J. Lieber & Lee M. Lockwood, 2019. "Targeting with In-Kind Transfers: Evidence from Medicaid Home Care," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(4), pages 1461-1485, April.
    6. Schütze, Tobias & Carlhoff, Henrik & Witschel, Helena, 2024. "Eliciting Paternalistic Preferences: An Incentivised Experiment," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 169, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    7. Björn Bartling & Krishna Srinivasan, 2025. "Paternalistic interventions: determinants of demand and supply," ECON - Working Papers 469, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. Björn Bartling & Krishna Srinivasan, 2025. "Paternalistic Interventions: Determinants of Demand and Supply," CESifo Working Paper Series 11886, CESifo.
    9. Zohal Hessami & Silke Uebelmesser, 2016. "A political-economy perspective on social expenditures: corruption and in-kind versus cash transfers," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 71-100, February.
    10. Tagliati, Federico, 2022. "Welfare effects of an in-kind transfer program: Evidence from Mexico," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    11. Gangadharan, Lata & Grossman, Philip J. & Jones, Kristy & Leister, C. Matthew, 2018. "Paternalistic giving: Restricting recipient choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 143-170.
    12. Dean Jolliffe & Juan Margitic & Martin Ravallion & Laura Tiehen, 2024. "Food stamps and America's poorest," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(4), pages 1380-1409, August.
    13. Eriksen, Michael D. & Lang, Bree J., 2020. "Overview and proposed reforms of the low-income housing tax credit program," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    14. König, Tobias & Lausen, Tobias, 2016. "Relative consumption preferences and public provision of private goods," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2016-213, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    15. Casey Mulligan & Tomas Philipson, "undated". "Merit Motives and Government Intervention: Public Finance in Reverse," University of Chicago - Population Research Center 2000-03, Chicago - Population Research Center.
    16. Michel Wedel & Wayne DeSarbo, 1995. "A mixture likelihood approach for generalized linear models," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 12(1), pages 21-55, March.
    17. Abhijit Banerjee & Rema Hanna & Benjamin A Olken & Elan Satriawan & Sudarno Sumarto, "undated". "Pangan versus Kupon Makanan: Bukti dari Eksperimen Berskala Besar di Indonesia," Working Papers 3537, Communications Section.
    18. Zhuan Pei, 2017. "Eligibility Recertification and Dynamic Opt-In Incentives in Income-Tested Social Programs: Evidence from Medicaid/CHIP," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 241-276, February.
    19. Lopez-Rodriguez, David, 2011. "The scope of political redistribution with proportional income taxation," MPRA Paper 44150, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2012.
    20. Federico Tagliati, 2019. "Child labor under cash and in-kind transfers: evidence from rural Mexico," Working Papers 1935, Banco de España.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
    • H19 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Other
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    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:zur:econwp:471. 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: Severin Oswald (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seizhch.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.