Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39288181›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024

Inequality aversion predicts support for public and private redistribution.

Thomas F Epper, Ernst Fehr, Claus Thustrup Kreiner, Søren Leth-Petersen, Isabel Skak Olufsen, Peer Ebbesen Skov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Thomas F Epper *CNRS, Institut d'Économie Scientifique Et de Gestion (IESEG) School of Management, University of Lille, Department of Economics & Management, F-59000 Lille, France.
Ernst Fehr *Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6325-7821
Claus Thustrup Kreiner *Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6421-492X
Søren Leth-Petersen *Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5585-3102
Isabel Skak Olufsen *Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4998-6790
Peer Ebbesen Skov *Department of Economics and Finance, Auckland University of Technology, 1142 Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-4713-4412

Funding

Danish National Research Foundation DNRF134Métropole Européenne de Lille
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rising inequality has brought redistribution back on the political agenda. In theory, inequality aversion drives people's support for redistribution. People can dislike both advantageous inequality (comparison relative to those worse off) and disadvantageous inequality (comparison relative to those better off). Existing experimental evidence reveals substantial variation across people in these preferences. However, evidence is scarce on the broader role of these two distinct forms of inequality aversion for redistribution in society. We provide evidence by exploiting a unique combination of data. We use an incentivized experiment to measure inequality aversion in a large population sample (≈9,000 among 20- to 64-y-old Danes). We link the elicited inequality aversion to survey information on individuals' support for public redistribution (policies that reduce income differences) and administrative records revealing their private redistribution (real-life donations to charity). In addition, the link to administrative data enables us to include a large battery of controls in the empirical analysis. Theory predicts that support for public redistribution increases with both types of inequality aversion, while private redistribution should increase with advantageous inequality aversion, but decrease with disadvantageous inequality aversion. A strong dislike for disadvantageous inequality makes people willing to sacrifice own income to reduce the income of people who are better off, thereby reducing the distance to people with more income than themselves. Public redistribution schemes achieve this but private donations to charity do not. Our empirical results provide strong support for these predictions and with quantitatively large effects compared to other predictors.

Indexed as

IncomeSocioeconomic FactorsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adultaltruismcharitable donationinequality aversionredistributionsocial preferences

Identifiers

PMID39288181
PMCPMC11441554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.