The book by @CharlotteCavai1 that Marc mentions in his thread is required reading imo for anyone interested in comparative political economy. I'm not qualified to review the book, but would like to draw your attention to some especially interesting cambridge.org/gb/universityp… x.com/MarcHvidkjaer/…
points.
Cavaillé defines "fairness reasoning as the thought process through which individuals reason as if a third-party judge ruling on the fairness of a given situation" (p. 32)
She then discusses 3 questions
1⃣ When does fairness matter relative to self-interest?
Cavaillé defines "fairness reasoning as the thought process through which individuals reason as if a third-party judge ruling on the fairness of a given situation" (p. 32)
She then discusses 3 questions
1⃣ When does fairness matter relative to self-interest?
I try to summarise her argument in the figure below.
2⃣ How does fairness matter (in the cross section)?
She distinguishes between two fairness norms: proportionality and reciprocity.
proportionality = Are people's rewards proportional to their effort? ('redistribution from')
2⃣ How does fairness matter (in the cross section)?
She distinguishes between two fairness norms: proportionality and reciprocity.
proportionality = Are people's rewards proportional to their effort? ('redistribution from')
-> Prop. is what many/most conventional measure ('The gov't should redistribute income from the better off to the worse off') of redistribution preferences capture.
reciprocity = Do people generally cooperate or not and thus deserve benefits? ('redistribution to')
reciprocity = Do people generally cooperate or not and thus deserve benefits? ('redistribution to')
Classic survey items like the one mentioned above lump together the 'redistribution to' and 'redistribution from' dimensions of our redistributive preferences.
See also her @The_JOP piece with K. Trump
journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.108…
See also her @The_JOP piece with K. Trump
journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.108…
The "preference space" then looks sth like the figure below.
Two further points are worth noting. First, Cavaillé argues that we choose proportionality belief in a self-interested manner, i.e. our beliefs about from whom it is just to take reflect, to a significant
Two further points are worth noting. First, Cavaillé argues that we choose proportionality belief in a self-interested manner, i.e. our beliefs about from whom it is just to take reflect, to a significant
extent, our material self-interest. Put somewhat crudely: everyone with income just above our own should be a net contributor and vice versa.
Second, the higher the material stakes, the greater the relative importance of material self-interest, partly because only then does
Second, the higher the material stakes, the greater the relative importance of material self-interest, partly because only then does
it pay to acquire the information necessary to assess the distributional consequences of policies.
How do fairness reasoning and self-interest interact? She conceptualises this interac. via 2-step procedure.
1. If a policy is perceived as fair, then support it. Otherwise,
How do fairness reasoning and self-interest interact? She conceptualises this interac. via 2-step procedure.
1. If a policy is perceived as fair, then support it. Otherwise,
oppose it.
2. Depending on material self-interest and info, adjust preferences.
The figure below reproduces the one in her book (apologies -- don't have a pdf copy at the moment).
There is much more in this part of the book, but let me turn to the second part, which
2. Depending on material self-interest and info, adjust preferences.
The figure below reproduces the one in her book (apologies -- don't have a pdf copy at the moment).
There is much more in this part of the book, but let me turn to the second part, which
bring us to third question she poses:
3⃣ How does fairness matter for changes in redistributive preferences over time?
Given her conceptual framework, there are 3 types of shocks:
▶️increase in relative importance of self-interest (see figure below)
3⃣ How does fairness matter for changes in redistributive preferences over time?
Given her conceptual framework, there are 3 types of shocks:
▶️increase in relative importance of self-interest (see figure below)
▶️change in fairness norm ppl rely on (prop vs recip)
▶️change in fairness beliefs (they change their beliefs about from whom it is just to take and to whom it is just to give)
Then, she maintains that there are three triggering factors:
▶️fiscal stress (austerity)
▶️change in fairness beliefs (they change their beliefs about from whom it is just to take and to whom it is just to give)
Then, she maintains that there are three triggering factors:
▶️fiscal stress (austerity)
Austerity reduces support for 'redustribution to' policies among high-reciprocity rich/net contributors.
Mechanism: Austerity raises takes -> reduces relative importance of fairness reasoning and increases pocketbook considerations -> lower redis. to
Test case: France (read the
Mechanism: Austerity raises takes -> reduces relative importance of fairness reasoning and increases pocketbook considerations -> lower redis. to
Test case: France (read the
book :))
▶️priming/framing
We can change ppl's attitudes by changing the fairness norm they employ to arrive at their preferences (reciprocity vs proportionality).
Empirical application: She exploits the ordering of prop- and recip-related questions in a British (not sure)
▶️priming/framing
We can change ppl's attitudes by changing the fairness norm they employ to arrive at their preferences (reciprocity vs proportionality).
Empirical application: She exploits the ordering of prop- and recip-related questions in a British (not sure)
survey to test this prediction.
▶️party competition and elite cues (on the final one, see my thread)
Both the book and the literature are much, much richer than I can convey in this thread, though I hope it will pique your interest.
▶️party competition and elite cues (on the final one, see my thread)
Both the book and the literature are much, much richer than I can convey in this thread, though I hope it will pique your interest.
https://x.com/edenhofer_jacob/status/1770034720111251541
For those who are too busy to peruse academic books, I'd recommend listening to @scopeconditions episode with @CharlotteCavai1, which I found inspiring. scopeconditionspodcast.com/episodes/episo…
I genuinely think many of these arguments can be fruitfully applied to other fields, such as climate policy (e.g. carbon pricing aversion, revenue recylcing, redistribition to/from). I am agog to see what other innovations @CharlotteCavai1's book will spawn.
Addendum: See here for somewhat more detailed introduction to the literature on preferences for redistribution.
https://x.com/edenhofer_jacob/status/1825935274440011883
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
