Meltzer-Richard and social mobility hypothesis: revisiting the income-redistribution nexus using German choice data

Pfarr, Christian (2012): Meltzer-Richard and social mobility hypothesis: revisiting the income-redistribution nexus using German choice data.

Abstract

Whereas the supply of redistribution is relatively easy to measure, the determinants of the demand for redistribution are controversially discussed in international literature. Economic theory typically models redistribution as the result of a voting mechanism; this is only inadequately reflected by the existing empirical studies. In general, these studies use survey data and are therefore not able to predict individuals’ decision making under the restriction of a budget constraint. This study aims at eliciting preferences for redistribution in Germany with the help of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE), based on a representative sample of 1,538 individuals. A DCE solves the aforementioned problems by forcing individuals to overcome trade-offs. The results show a strong preference for redistribution that overshoots the current level. Considering socio-demographic characteristics, the results contradict the Meltzer-Richard-Model and the POUM hypothesis, while Piketty’s learning model is strongly supported by the data.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: redistributive preferences; social mobility; median voter
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement; D - Microeconomics > D3 - Distribution > D31 - Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C93 - Field Experiments; H - Public Economics > H2 - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue > H23 - Externalities ; Redistributive Effects ; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies

References

Alesina, A. and Angeletos, G.-M. (2005), Fairness and Redistribution, in: The American Economic Review 95 [4], pp. 960–980.

Alesina, A. and Giuliano, P. (2011), Preferences for Redistribution, in: Benhabib, J., Jackson, M. O. und Bisin, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Social Economics, 1A, North Holland, Amsterdam, Boston, Heidelberg, London, New York, Oxford, Paris, San Diego, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, pp. 93–132.

Alesina, A. and Glaeser, E. (2004), Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference, Oxford Uni-versity Press, Oxford.

Alesina, A. and La Ferrara, E. (2005), Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities, in: Journal of Public Economics 89 [5-6], pp. 897–931.

Amaya-Amaya, M., Gerard, K. and Ryan, M. (2008), Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Nutshell, in: Ryan, M., Gerard, K. und Amaya-Amaya, M. (Ed.), Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 13–46.

Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M. and Hanley, N. (2002), Economic valuation with stated preference techniques, A manual, Elgar, Cheltenham.

Bech, M., Kjær, T. and Lauridsen, J. (2011), Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment, in: Health Economics 20 [3], pp. 273–286.

Bekker-Grob, E. W. de, Ryan, M. and Gerard, K. (2012), Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature, in: Health Economics 21 [1], pp. 145–172.

Benabou, R. and Ok, E. (2001), Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution, the POUM Hypothesis, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 [2], pp. 447–487.

Benabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2006), Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics 121 [2], pp. 699–746.

Ben-Akiva, M. and Lermann, S. R. (1985), Discrete choice analysis, Theory and applications to travel demand, MIT Press, Cambridge.

BMAS - Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (2009), Sozialbericht 2009, Bonn.

BMAS - Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (2011), Sozialbudget 2010, Berlin.

Boeckh, J., Huster, E.-U. and Benz, B. (2011), Sozialpolitik in Deutschland, Eine systematische Einführung, 3., grundlegend überarb. und erw. Ed., VS-Verl, Wiesbaden.

Boeri, T., Börsch-Supan, A.-H. and Tabellini, G. (2001), Would you like to shrink the welfare state? A survey of European citizens, in: Economic Policy 16 [32], pp. 7–50.

Boeri, T., Börsch-Supan, A.-H. and Tabellini, G. (2002), Pension Reforms and the Opinions of European Citi-zens, in: The American Economic Review 92 [2], pp. 396–401.

Borck and Rainald (2007), Voting, Inequality and Redistribution, in: Journal of Economic Surveys 21 [1], pp. 90–109.

Boxall, P. C. and Adamowicz, W. L. (2002), Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Mod-els: A Latent Class Approach, in: Environmental and Resource Economics 23 [4], pp. 421–446.

Breyer, F. and Ursprung, H. W. (1998), Are the rich too rich to be expropriated?: Economic power and the feasi-bility of constitutional limits to redistribution, in: Public Choice 94 [1], pp. 135–156.

Cameron, A. C. and Trivedi, P. K. (2008), Microeconometrics, Methods and applications, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Carson, R. T., Louviere, J. J., Anderson, D. A., Arabie, P., Bunch, D. S., Hensher, D. A., Johnson, R. M., Kuhfeld, W. F., Steinberg, D., Swait, J., Timmermans, H. and Wiley, J. B. (1994), Experimental Analaysis of Choice, in: Marketing Letters 5 [4], pp. 351–368.

Clark, A. and D'Angelo, E. (2010), Upward Social Mobility, Well-being and Political Preferences: Evidence from the BHPS, Working Paper, Nr. 338, Universita´ Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona.

Corneo, G. (2001), Inequality and the State: Comparing US and German Preferences, in: Annales d'Economie et de Statistique 63-64, pp. 283–296.

Corneo, G. (2004), Wieso Umverteilung? Einsichten aus ökonometrischen Umfrageanalysen, in: Brunner, J. K. und Genser, B. (Ed.), Finanzpolitik und Umverteilung, Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, Bd. N.F., 301, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp. 55–88.

Corneo, G. and Grüner, H. P. (2000), Social Limits to Redistribution, in: American Economic Review 90 [5], pp. 1491–1507.

Corneo, G. and Grüner, H. P. (2002), Individual preferences for political redistribution, in: Journal of Public Economics 83 [1], pp. 83–107.

Essig, L. and Winter, J. K. (2009), Item Non-Response to Financial Questions in Household Surveys: An Ex-permental Study of Interviewer and Mode Effects, in: Fiscal Studies 30 [3/4], pp. 367–390.

Fong, C. (2001), Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution, in: Journal of Public Eco-nomics 82 [2], pp. 225–246.

Fong, C. (2006), Prospective Mobility, Fairness, and the Demand for Redistribution, Working Paper, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.

García-Valiñas, M. A., Llera, R. F. and Torgler, B. (2008), More Income Equality or Not?, An Empirical Analysis of Individuals’ Preferences for Redistribution, Working/Discussion Paper, Nr. 220, University of Oviedo, Oviedo. Gegax, D. and Stanley, L. R. (1997), Validating Conjoint and Hedonic Preference Measures: Evidence from Valuing Reductions in Risk, in: Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics 36 [2], pp. 31–54.

Guillaud, E. (2012), Preferences for redistribution: an empirical analysis over 33 countries, in: Journal of Eco-nomic Inequality online first doi: 10.1007/s10888-011-9205-0.

Hanemann, M. (1983), Marginal Welfare Measures for Discrete Choice Models, in: Economics Letters 13 [1], pp. 129–136. Harms, P. and Zink, S. (2003), Limits to redistribution in a democracy: a survey, in: European Journal of Politi-cal Economy 19 [4], pp. 651–668.

Hirschman, A. O. and Rothschild, M. (1973), The Changing Tolerance for Income Inequality in the Course of Economic Development, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics 87 [4], pp. 544–566.

Hole, A. R. (2007), A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures, in: Health Economics 16 [8], pp. 827–840.

Johnson, R. F. and Desvousges, W. H. (1997), Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Da-ta: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs, in: Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34 [1], pp. 78–99.

Kanninen, B. J. (2002), Optimal Design for Multinomial Choice Experiments, in: Journal of Marketing Research 39 [2], pp. 214–227.

Karabarbounis, L. (2011), One Dollar, One Vote, in: The Economic Journal 121 [553], pp. 621–651.

Kenworthy, L. and McCall, L. (2008), Inequality, Public Opinion, and Redistriubution, in: Socio-economic Re-view 6 [1], pp. 35–68.

Kuhfeld, W. F. (2006), Construction of Efficient Designs for Discrete-Choice-Experiments, in: Grover, R. und Vriens, M. (Ed.), The handbook of marketing research, Uses, misuses, and future advances, Sage Publ., Thousand Oaks, Calif., pp. 312–363.

Kuhfeld, W. F., Tobias, R. D. and Garratt, M. (1994), Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications, in: Journal of Marketing Research XXXI, pp. 545–557.

Kuhn, A. (2010), Demand for redistribution, support for the welfare state, and party identification in Austria, in: Empirica 37, pp. 215–236.

Kuhn, A. (2011a), In the Eye of the Beholder: Subjective Inequality Measures and Individuals' Assessment of Market Justice, in: European Journal of Political Economy 27 [4], pp. 625–641.

Kuhn, A. (2012), Inequality Perceptions, Distributional Norms, and Redistributive Preferences in East and West Germany, in: German Economic Review online first doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0475.2012.00577.x.

Lancaster, K. J. (1966), A New Approach to Consumer Theory, in: Journal of Political Economy 74 [2], pp. 132–157. Lancaster, K. J. (1971), Consumer demand, A new approach, Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

Lancsar, E., Louviere, J. J. and Flynn, T. N. (2007), Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments, in: Social Science & Medicine 64 [8], pp. 1738–1753.

Louviere, J. J. and Hensher, D. A. (1982), Design and Analysis of Simulated Choice or Allocation Experiments in Travel Choice Modelling, in: Transportation Research Record 890, pp. 11–17.

Louviere, J. J. and Street, D. J. (2000), Stated-Preference Methods, in: Hensher, D. A. und Button, K. (Ed.), Handbook of transport modelling, 1. Aufl., Pergamon, New York, pp. 131–143.

Louviere, J. J. and Woodworth, G. (1983), Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregated Data, in: Journal of Marketing Research 20 [4], pp. 350–367.

Manski, C. F. (1977), The Structure of Random Utility Models, in: Theory and Decision 8, pp. 229–254.

McFadden, D. (1974), Conditional Logit Analysis of Quantitative Choice Behavior, in: Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 105–142.

McFadden, D. (1981), Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice, in: Manski, C. F. und McFadden, D. (Ed.), Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 198–272.

Mello, L. de and Tiongson, E. R. (2006), Income Inequality and Redistributive Government Spending, in: Public Finance Review 34 [3], pp. 282–305.

Meltzer, A. H. and Richard, S. F. (1981), A Rational Theory of the Size of Government, in: Journal of Political Economy 89 [5], pp. 914–927.

Meltzer, A. H. and Richard, S. F. (1983), Tests of a rational theory of the size of government, in: Public Choice 41 [3], pp. 403–418.

Milanovic, B. (2000), The median-voter hypothesis, income inequality, and income redistribution: an empirical test with the required data, in: European Journal of Political Economy 16 [3], pp. 367–410.

Neustadt, I. (2011), Do Religious Beliefs Explain Preferences for Income Redistribution? Experimental Design, in: CESifo Economic Studies 57 [4], pp. 623–652.

Neustadt, I. and Zweifel, P. (2010a), Economic Well-Being, Social Mobility, and Preferences for Income Redis-tribution: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment, Working Paper, Nr. 0909, Universität Zürich, Zürich.

Neustadt, I. and Zweifel, P. (2010b), Is the Welfare State Sustainable?, Experimental Evidence on Citizens' Pref-erences for Redistribution, CESifo Working Paper Public Choice, Nr. 3148, Ifo, Munich.

OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011a), Divided we stand, Why inequality keeps rising, OECD, Paris.

OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developement (2011b), Society at a glance 2011, OECD social indicators, Paris.

Pekelman, D. and Sen, S. K. (1979), Measurement and Estimation of Conjoint Utility Functions, in: The Journal of Consumer Research 5 [4], pp. 263–271.

Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. E. (2000), Political Economics, Explaining Economic Policy, MIT Press, Cam-bridge, Mass.

Pfarr, C. (2013), Einkommen, Mobilität und individuelle Präferenzen für Umverteilung, Ein Discrete-Choice-Experiment, Beiträge zur Finanzwissenschaft, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, forthcoming.

Phillips, K. A., Maddala, T. and Johnson, R. F. (2002), Measuring Preferences for Health Care Interventions Using Conjoint Analysis: An Application to HIV Testign, in: Health Services Research 37 [6], pp. 1681–1705.

Piketty, T. (1995), Social Mobility and Redistributive Politics, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 [3], pp. 551–584.

Pimpertz, J., Horschel, N. and Schröder, C. (2009), Soziale Umverteilung in Deutschland, Bestandsaufnahme und Ansätze zu einer rationalen Neukonzeption, Deutscher Instituts-Verlag, Köln.

Rainer, H. and Siedler, T. (2008), Subjective Income and Employment Expectations and Preferences for Redis-tribution, in: Economic Letters 99 [3], pp. 449–453.

Ravallion, M. and Lokshin, M. (2000), Who Wants to Redistribute?, Russia's Tunnel Effect in the 1990s, in: Journal of Public Economics 76 [1], pp. 87–104.

Roberts, K. W. S. (1977), Voting Over Income Tax Schedules, in: Journal of Public Economics 8 [3], pp. 329–340.

Rodriguez, F. (1999), Does Distributional Skewness Lead to Redistribution?, Evidence from the United States, in: Economics & Politics 11 [2], pp. 171–199.

Romer, T. (1975), Individual Welfare, Majority Voting, and the Properties of a Linear Income Tax, in: Journal of Public Economics 4 [2], pp. 163–185.

Statistisches Bundesamt and Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (2011), Datenreport 2011, Ein Sozialbericht für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, BpB, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Bonn.

Suhrcke, M. (2001), Preferences for Inequality: East vs. West, Innocenti Working Paper, Nr. 89, Florenz. SVR - Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (2011), Verantwortung für Europa wahrnehmen, Jahresgutachten 2011/2012, Stat. Bundesamt, Wiesbaden.

Telser, H. (2002), Nutzenmessung im Gesundheitswesen, Die Methode der Discrete-Choice-Experimente, Kovac, Hamburg.

Train, K. E. (2009), Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd Ed., Cambridge University Press, New York.

Vroomen, J. M. and Zweifel, P. (2011), Preferences for health insurance and health status: does it matter whether you are Dutch or German?, in: European Journal of Health Economics 12 [1], pp. 87–95.

Zweifel, P., Leukert, K. and Berner, S. (2010), Preferences for Health Insurance in Germany and the Netherlands - A Tale of Two Countries, Working Paper, Universität Zürich, Zürich.