Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Is the Welfare State Sustainable? Experimental Evidence on Citizens' Preferences for Redistribution

Profile image of Peter ZweifelPeter Zweifel

2010, SSRN Electronic Journal

https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1621086
visibility

…

description

36 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The sustainability of the welfare state ultimately depends on citizens' preferences for income redistribution. They are elicited through a Discrete Choice Experiment performed in 2008 in Switzerland. Attributes are redistribution as GDP share, its uses (the unemployed, old-age pensioners, people with ill health etc.), and nationality of beneficiary. Estimated marginal willingness to pay (WTP) is positive among those who deem benefits too low, and negative otherwise. However, even those who state that government should reduce income inequality exhibit a negative WTP on average. The major finding is that estimated average WTP is maximum at 21% of GDP, clearly below the current value of 25%. Thus, the present Swiss welfare state does not appear sustainable.

Related papers

Economic Well-Being, Social Mobility, and Preferences for Income Redistribution: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment
Ilja Neustadt

Working Papers, 2010

View PDFchevron_right
Strong Welfare States Do Not Intensify Public Support for Income Redistribution, but Even Reduce It among the Prosperous: A Multilevel Analysis of Public Opinion in 30 Countries
Societies MDPI

How tightly linked are the strength of a country's welfare state and its residents' support for income redistribution? Multilevel model results (with appropriate controls) show that the publics of strong welfare states recognize their egalitarian income distributions, i.e., the stronger the welfare state, the less the actual and perceived inequality; but they do not differ from their peers in liberal welfare states/market-oriented societies in their preferences for equality. Thus, desire for redistribution bears little overall relationship to welfare state activity. However, further investigation shows a stronger relationship under the surface: Poor people's support for redistribution is nearly constant across levels of welfarism. By contrast, the stronger the welfare state, the less the support for redistribution among the prosperous, perhaps signaling "harvest fatigue" due to paying high taxes and longstanding egalitarian policies. Our findings are not consistent with structuralist/materialist theory, nor with simple dominant ideology or system justification arguments, but are partially consistent with a legitimate framing hypothesis, with an atomistic self-interest hypothesis, with a reference group solidarity hypothesis, and with the "me-and-mine" hypothesis incorporating sociotropic and egotropic elements. Database: the World Inequality Study: 30 countries, 71 surveys, and over 88,0000 individuals.

View PDFchevron_right
Popular Support for Welfare State Reforms: On Welfare State Preferences and Welfare State Reforms in the Netherlands
Judith Raven

2009

textabstractThe aim of this research is to better understand what is meant by general support for the welfare state. At the start of this study, I observed an alleged discrepancy between people’s preferences and welfare state policies. Whereas on the one hand various studies demonstrate that public support for generous welfare state arrangements remained high or in some countries increased across time, actual policy designs changed in the opposite direction and became increasingly sober and conditional. This mismatch between preferences and welfare state transformations has led me to research in detail whether and why the public continues to support welfare state arrangements. In general, this study reveals three conclusions that extend previous research in the field. First, welfare state support and real welfare policies are inextricably intertwined. Individual welfare preferences cannot sufficiently be understood if the reform of various welfare state policies is not considered si...

View PDFchevron_right
Popular preferences for a fully means-tested welfare provision model: social and cross-national divides in Europe
Dimitri Gugushvili

International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 2020

Purpose-Whether welfare provision should be broad-based or selectively targeted at the poor is one of the most common themes in social policy discourse. However, empirical evidence concerning people's preferences about these distributive justice principles is very limited. The current paper aims to bridge this gap, by analyzing Europeans' opinions about a hypothetical transformation of the welfare state that would provide social transfers and services only to people on low incomes. Design/methodology/approach-The analysis draws on data from the 2016 European Social Survey and covers 21 countries. In order to understand what would motivate people to support the complete means testing of welfare provision, we use multilevel models with individual-level and contextual predictors. Findings-The results show that the upper and middle classes are the most opposed to the idea, presumably as they would be the net losers from such a reform. Furthermore, our results indicate that more-egalitarian people show a higher level of support for means testing, even though the political left has traditionally promoted universalism. Some key characteristics of the welfare state also matter: People are more likely to endorse complete means testing in countries with less-generous provision and a higher incidence of poverty. However, the extent to which the existing welfare state relies on means testing has no influence on people's opinions about implementing a fully means-tested welfare model. Practical implications-Some of the key findings are likely to be of interest to activists advocating on behalf of the poor and the socially vulnerable. Although it is generally assumed that universal provision is the best strategy to address the needs of disadvantaged people, our results suggest that from an electoral point of view, targeting within universalism may be a more appealing welfare strategy. Originality/value-This paper details one of the very few studies to examine preferences for means-tested welfare provision in a comparative context. In addition, one of the contextual variables used in the analysisthe proportion of means-tested social benefits out of the total expenditure on social benefitsis unique to this study.

View PDFchevron_right
The Effect of Direct Democratic Institutions on Income Redistribution: Evidence for Switzerland
Lars Feld, Gebhard Kirchgaessner

There is an intensive dispute in political economics about the impact of institutions on income redistribution. While the main focus is on comparison between different forms of representative democracy, the influence of direct democracy on redistribution has attracted much less attention. In this paper, employing both a composite index and measures of single institutions, we find that direct democracy is particularly associated with lower welfare spending. Moreover, we estimate a model which explains the determinants of achieved redistribution measured by Gini coefficients using panel data provided by the Swiss Federal Tax Office from 1981 to 1997. While our results indicate that less public funds are used to redistribute income and actual redistribution is lower, inequality is not reduced to a lesser extent in direct than in representative democracies for a given initial income distribution.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Economics
  • Conjoint Analysis
  • Applied Economics
  • Social Science Research Network
  • Discrete Choice Experiments
  • Economics Finance
  • Income Redistribution
  • Finance and Investment Banking

    • References (54)

    1. Akkoyunlu, S., Neustadt, I. and Zweifel, P. (2009). Why Does the Amount of Income Redis- tribution Differ between United States and Europe? The Janus Face of Switzerland, SOI Working Paper No. 0810, University of Zurich, Socioeconomic Institute.
    2. Alesina, A. and Angeletos, G.-M. (2005). Fairness and Redistribution, The American Economic Review 95(4): 960-980.
    3. Alesina, A. and Giuliano, P. (2009). Preferences for Redistribution, Working Paper.
    4. Alesina, A. and Glaeser, E. (2004). Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference, Oxford University Press.
    5. Alesina, A. and La Ferrara, E. (2005). Preferences for Redistribution in the Land of Opportunities, Journal of Public Economics 89: 897-931.
    6. Alesina, A. and Rodrik, D. (1994). Distributive Politics and Economic Growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics 109(1): 465-490.
    7. Andreoni, J. and Miller, J. (2002). Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism, 70(2): 737-752.
    8. Beck, J. H. (1994). An Experimental Test of Preferences for the Distribution of Income and Individual Risk Aversion, Eastern Economic Journal 20(2): 131-145.
    9. Ben-Akiva, M. E. and Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis, MIT Press.
    10. Benabou, R. and Ok, E. (2001). Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: the POUM Hypothesis, Quarterly Journal of Economics 116(2): 447-487.
    11. Benabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2006). Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics, Quarterly Journal of Economics 121(2): 699-746.
    12. Boeri, T., Boersch-Supan, A. and Tabellini, G. (2002). Pension Reforms and the Opinions of European Citizens, The American Economic Review 92(2): 396-401.
    13. Boeri, T., Boersch-Supan, A., Tabellini, G., Moene, K. O. and Lockwood, B. (2001). Would You Like to Shrink the Welfare State? A Survey of European Citizens, Economic Policy 16(32): 7-50.
    14. Carlsson, F. and Martinsson, P. (2003). Design Techniques for Stated Preference Methods in Health Economics, Health Economics 12: 281-294.
    15. Checchi, D. and Filippin, A. (2004). An Experimental Study of the POUM Hypothesis, Research on Economic Inequality 11: 115-136.
    16. Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. (1999). A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation, Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 817-868.
    17. Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. (2006). Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Vol. 1, North-Holland, chapter 8, The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism: Experimental Evidence.
    18. Feld, L. P., Fischer, J. A. and Kirchgaessner, G. (2007). The Effect of Direct Democratic In- stitutions on Income Redistribution: Evidence for Switzerland, Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 689, Stockholm School of Economics.
    19. Fong, C. (2001). Social Preferences, Self-Interest, and the Demand for Redistribution, Journal of Public Economics 82: 225-246.
    20. Guillaud, E. (2008). Preferences for Redistribution: a European Comparative Analysis, Working Paper.
    21. Hensher, D. A., Louviere, J. J. and Swait, J. D. (1999). Combining Sources of Preference Data, Journal of Econometrics 89(1-2): 197-221.
    22. Hirschman, A. and Rothschild, M. (1973). The Changing Tolerance of Income Inequality in the Course of Economic Development, Quarterly Journal of Economics 87(4): 544-566.
    23. Hole, A. R. (2007). A Comparison of Approaches to Estimating Confidence Intervals for Will- ingness to Pay Measures, Health Economics 16: 827-840.
    24. Kuhn, A. (2005). Subjective Evaluations of Wage Inequality and Preferences for Redistribution, Working Paper, University of Zurich.
    25. Lancaster, K. (1971). Consumer Demand: A New Approach, Columbia University Press.
    26. Lizzeri, A. and Persico, N. (2001). The Provision of Public Goods under Alternative Electoral Incentives, The American Economic Review 91(1): 225-239.
    27. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A. and Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated Choice Methods -Analysis and Application, Cambridge University Press.
    28. Luce, D. (1959). Individual Choice Behavior, Wiley and Sons, New York.
    29. Manski, C. F. and Lerman, S. F. (1977). The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples, Econometrica 45(8): 1977-1988.
    30. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional Logit Analysis of Quantitative Choice Behavior, in: Frontiers of Economics, pp. 105-142. ed. P. Zarembka, Academic Press, New York.
    31. McFadden, D. (1981). Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice, in: Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, pp. 198-272. ed. by Ch. Manski and D. McFadden, MIT Press.
    32. McFadden, D. (2001). Economic Choices, The American Economic Review 91(3): 351-378.
    33. Meltzer, A. H. and Richard, S. F. (1981). A Rational Theory of the Size of Government, Journal of Political Economy 89(5): 914-927.
    34. Merino-Castello, A. (2003). Eliciting Consumers' Preferences Using Stated Preference Discrete- Choice Models: Contingent Ranking versus Choice Experiment, University Pompeu Fabra Economics and Business Working Paper No. 705.
    35. Milanovic, B. (2000). The Median-Voter Hypothesis, Income Inequality, and Income Redistribu- tion: An Empirical Test with the Required Data, European Journal of Political Economy 16(3): 367-410.
    36. Milesi-Ferretti, G. M., Perotti, R. and Rostagno, M. (2002). Electoral Systems and Public Spend- ing, Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 609-657.
    37. Molnár, G. and Kapitány, Z. (2006a). Mobility, Uncertainty and Subjective Well-Being in Hun- gary, Discussion Paper 2006/5, Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Science.
    38. Molnár, G. and Kapitány, Z. (2006b). Uncertainty and the Demand for Redistribution, Discussion Paper 2006/8, Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Science.
    39. Neustadt, I. and Zweifel, P. (2009). Economic Well-Being, Social Mobility, and Preferences for Income Redistribution: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment, SOI Working Paper 0909, University of Zurich, Socioeconomic Institute.
    40. Neustadt, I. and Zweifel, P. (2010). Income Redistribution: How Should the Pie be Divided?, SOI Working Paper, forthcoming, University of Zurich, Socioeconomic Institute.
    41. Perotti, R. (1996). Growth, Income Distribution and Democracy: What the Data Say, Journal of Economic Growth 1(2): 149-188.
    42. Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (1994). Is Inequality Harmful for Growth?, The American Economic Review 84(2): 600-621.
    43. Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (2000). Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy, MIT Press.
    44. Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (2003). The Economic Effects of Constitutions, Munich Lectures in Economics, MIT Press.
    45. Rainer, H. and Siedler, T. (2008). Subjective Income and Employment Expectations and Prefer- ences for Redistribution, Economics Letters 99: 449-453.
    46. Ravallion, M. and Lokshin, M. (2000). Who Wants to Redistribute? The Tunnel Effect in 1990s Russia, Journal of Public Economics 76: 87-104.
    47. Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    48. Roberts, K. W. S. (1977). Voting over Income Tax Schedules, Journal of Public Economics 8: 329-340.
    49. Rodriguez, F. C. (1999). Does Distributional Skewness Lead to Redistribution? Evidence from the United States, Economics and Politics 11(2): 171-199.
    50. Romer, T. (1975). Individual Welfare, Majory Voting, and the Properties of a Linear Income Tax, Journal of Public Economics 4: 163-185.
    51. Ryan, M. (2004). A Comparison on Stated Preference Methods for Estimating Monetary Values, Health Economics 13(3): 291-296.
    52. Samuelson, P. A. (1938). A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behaviour, Economics 5(17): 61-71.
    53. Telser, H. (2002). Nutzenmessung im Gesundheitswesen, Kovač, Hamburg. Working Papers of the Socioeconomic Institute at the University of Zurich The Working Papers of the Socioeconomic Institute can be downloaded from http://www.soi.uzh.ch/research/wp_en.html 1003 Is the Welfare State Sustainable? Experimental Evidence on Citizens' Preferences for Income Redistribution, Ilja Neustadt, Peter Zweifel, March 2010, 32 p. 1002 Preferences for Health Insurance in Germany and the Netherlands -A Tale of Two Countries, Peter Zweifel, Karolin Leukert, Stephanie Berner, March 2010, 22 p. 1001 Convex Treatment Response and Treatment Selection, Stefan Boes, January 2010, 28 p. 0920 Bounds on Counterfactual Distributions Under Semi-Monotonicity Constraints, Stefan Boes, December 2009, 38 p. 0919 Rotten Kids with Bad Intentions, Nick Netzer, Armin Schmutzler, December 2009, 38 p. 0918 Partial Identification of Discrete Counterfactual Distributions with Sequential Update of Information, Stefan Boes, December 2009, 37 p. 0917 How much do journal titles tell us about the academic interest and relevance of economic reserach? An empirical analysis, Felix Schläpfer, December 2009, 14 p. 0916 Fine Tuning of Health Insurance Regulation: Unhealthy Consequences for an Individual Insurer, Johannes Schoder, Michèle Sennhauser, Peter Zweifel, August 2009, 18 p. 0915 Capping Risk Adjustment?, Patrick Eugster, Michèle Sennhauser, Peter Zweifel, September 2009, 27 p. 0914 A Pharmaceutical Innovation: Is it Worth the Money? Whose Money?, Michèle Sennhauser, Peter Zweifel, September 2009, 22 p. 0913 Copula-based bivariate binary response models, Rainer Winkelmann, August 2009, 26 p. 0912 Simulating WTP Values from Random-Coefficient Models, Maurus Rischatsch, July 2009, 6 p. 0911 Physician dispensing and the choice between generic and brand-name drugs -Do margins affect choice?, Maurus Rischatsch, Maria Trottmann, July 2009, 15 p. 0910 GPs' preferences: What price fee-for-service?, Peter Zweifel, Maurus Rischatsch, Angelika Brändle, July 2009, 21 p. 0909 Economic Well-Being, Social Mobility, and Preferences for Income Redistribution: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment, Ilja Neustadt, Peter Zweifel, July 2009, revised January 2010, 33 p. 0908 Robust estimation of zero-inflated count models, Kevin E. Staub, Rainer Winkelmann, June 2009, 22 p. 0907 Competitive Screening in Insurance Markets with Endogenous Wealth Heterogeneity, Nick Netzer, Florian Scheuer, April 2009, 28 p. 0906 New Flight Regimes and Exposure to Aircraft Noise: Identifying Housing Price Effects Using a Ratio-of-Ratios Approach, Stefan Boes, Stephan Nüesch, April 2009, 40 p. 0905 Patents versus Subsidies -A Laboratory Experiment, Donja Darai, Jens Großer, Nadja Trhal, March 2009, 59 p. 0904 Simple tests for exogeneity of a binary explanatory variable in count data regression models, Kevin E. Staub, February 2009, 30 p. 0903 Spurious correlation in estimation of the health production function: A note, Sule Akkoyunlu, Frank R. Lichtenberg, Boriss Siliverstovs, Peter Zweifel, February 2009, 13 p. Making Sense of Non-Binding Retail-Price Recommendations, Stefan Bühler, Dennis L. Gärtner, February 2009, 30 p. 0901 Flat-of-the-Curve Medicine -A New Perspective on the Production of Health, Johnnes Schoder, Peter Zweifel, January 2009, 35 p. 0816 Relative status and satisfaction, Stefan Boes, Kevin E. Staub, Rainer Winkelmann, December 2008, 11 p. 0815 Delay and Deservingness after Winning the Lottery, Andrew J. Oswald, Rainer Winkelmann, December 2008, 29 p. 0814 Competitive Markets without Commitment, Nick Netzer, Florian Scheuer, November 2008, 65 p. 0813 Scope of Electricity Efficiency Improvement in Switzerland until 2035, Boris Krey, October 2008, 25 p. 0812 Efficient Electricity Portfolios for the United States and Switzerland: An Investor View, Boris Krey, Peter Zweifel, October 2008, 26 p. 0811 A welfare analysis of "junk" information and spam filters; Josef Falkinger, October 2008, 33 p. 0810 Why does the amount of income redistribution differ between United States and Europe? The Janus face of Switzerland; Sule Akkoyunlu, Ilja Neustadt, Peter Zweifel, September 2008, 32 p. 0809 Promoting Renewable Electricity Generation in Imperfect Markets: Price vs. Quantity Policies; Reinhard Madlener, Weiyu Gao, Ilja Neustadt, Peter Zweifel, July 2008, 34p. 0808 Is there a U-shaped Relation between Competition and Investment? Dario Sacco, July 2008, 26p. 0807 Competition and Innovation: An Experimental Investigation, May 2008, 20 p. 0806 All-Pay Auctions with Negative Prize Externalities: Theory and Experimental Evidence, May 2008, 31 p. 0805 Between Agora and Shopping Mall, Josef Falkinger, May 2008, 31 p. 0804 Provision of Public Goods in a Federalist Country: Tiebout Competition, Fiscal Equalization, and Incentives for Efficiency in Switzerland, Philippe Widmer, Peter Zweifel, April 2008, 22 p. 0803 Stochastic Expected Utility and Prospect Theory in a Horse Race: A Finite Mixture Approach, Adrian Bruhin, March 2008, 25 p. 0802 The effect of trade openness on optimal government size under endogenous firm entry, Sandra Hanslin, March 2008, 31 p. 0801 Managed Care Konzepte und Lösungsansätze -Ein internationaler Vergleich aus schweizerischer Sicht, Johannes Schoder, Peter Zweifel, February 2008, 23 p. 0719 Why Bayes Rules: A Note on Bayesian vs. Classical Inference in Regime Switching Models, Dennis Gärtner, December 2007, 8 p. 0718 Monoplistic Screening under Learning by Doing, Dennis Gärtner, December 2007, 29 p. 0717 An analysis of the Swiss vote on the use of genetically modified crops, Felix Schläpfer, November 2007, 23 p. 0716 The relation between competition and innovation -Why is it such a mess? Armin Schmutzler, November 2007, revised January 2010, 37 p. 0715 Contingent Valuation: A New Perspective, Felix Schläpfer, November 2007, 32 p. 0714 Competition and Innovation: An Experimental Investigation, Dario Sacco, October 2007, 36p.
    54. 0713 Hedonic Adaptation to Living Standards and the Hidden Cost of Parental Income, Stefan Boes, Kevin Staub, Rainer Winkelmann, October 2007, 18p.
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved