Advertisement

The Journal of Economic Inequality

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 507–525 | Cite as

How does inequality aversion affect inequality and redistribution?

  • Matthew N. Murray
  • Langchuan PengEmail author
  • Rudy Santore
Original Paper
  • 170 Downloads

Abstract

We investigate the effects of inequality aversion on equilibrium labor supply, tax revenue, income inequality, and median voter outcomes in a society where agents have heterogeneous skill levels. These outcomes are compared to those which result from the behavior of selfish agents. A variant of Fehr-Schmidt preferences is employed that allows the externality from agents who are “ahead” to differ in magnitude from the externality from those who are “behind” in the income distribution. We find first, that inequality-averse preferences yield distributional outcomes that are analogous to tax-transfer schemes with selfish agents, and may either increase or decrease average consumption. Second, in a society of inequality-averse agents, a linear income tax can be welfare-enhancing. Third, inequality-averse preferences can lead to less redistribution at any given tax, with low-wage agents receiving smaller net subsidies and/or high-wage individuals paying less in net taxes. Finally, an inequality-averse median voter may prefer higher redistribution even if it means less utility from own consumption and leisure.

Keywords

Income distribution Inequality aversion Redistribution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10888_2018_9389_MOESM1_ESM.docx (27 kb)
(DOCX 26.7 KB)

References

  1. Ackert, L.F., Martinez-Valdez, J., Rider, M.: Social preferences and tax policy: Some experimental evidence. Econ. Inq. 45, 487–501 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Algood, S.: The marginal costs and benefits of redistributing income and the willingness to pay for status. J. Public. Econ. Theory. 8, 357–77 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., Angeletos, G.: Fairness and redistribution. Am. Econ. Rev., pp. 960–980 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alm, J., McClelland, G.H., Schulze, W.: Changing the norm of tax compliance by voting. Kyklos 52, 141–71 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson, A.B.: On the measurement of inequality. J. Econ. Theory. 2, 244–263 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckman, S.R., Formby, J., Smith, J.S., Zheng, B.: Envy, malice and pareto efficiency: an experimental examination. Soc. Choice. Welfare. 19, 349–367 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolton, G., Ockenfels, A.: ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am. Econ. Rev. 90, 166–193 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, A.E., Frijters, P., Shields, M.A.: Relative income, happiness, and utility: an explanation for the easterlin paradox and other puzzles. J. Econ. Lit. 46, 95–144 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dhami, S., Al-Nowaihi, A.: Existence of a condorcet winner when voters have other regarding preferences. J. Public. Econ. Theory. 12, 897–922 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dhami, S., Al-Nowaihi, A.: Redistributive policies with heterogeneous social preferences of voters. Eur. Econ. Rev. 54, 743–759 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dorfman, R.: A formula for the gini coefficient. Rev. Econ. Stat. 61, 146–149 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Easterlin, R.A.: Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 27, 35–48 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fehr, E., Schmidt, K.M.: A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 114, 817–868 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U.: Why social preferences matter—the impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation and incentives. Econ. J. 112, C1–C33 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forsythe, R, Horowitz, J., Savin, N.E., Sefton, M.: Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Game. Econ. Behav 6, 347–369 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank, R.H.: Should public policy respond to positional externalities. J. Public. Econ. 92, 1777–86 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frohlich, N, Oppenheimer, J., Kurki, A.: Modeling other-regarding preferences and an experimental test. Publ. Choice 119, 91–117 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galasso, V: Redistribution and fairness: a note. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 19, 885–892 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hochman, H.M., Rodgers, J.D.: Pareto optimal redistribution. Am. Econ. Rev. 59, 542–557 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. Höchtl, W., Sausgruber, R., Tyran, J.: Inequality aversion and voting on redistribution. Eur. Econ. Rev. 56, 1406–1421 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hopkins, E.: Inequality, happiness and relative concerns: What actually is their relationship. J. Econ. Inequal. 6, 351–72 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hwang, S., Lee, J.: Conspicuous consumption and income inequality. Oxford. Econ. Pap. 69, 279–292 (2017)Google Scholar
  23. Ireland, N.J.: Status seeking, income taxation and efficiency. J. Public. Econ. 70, 99–113 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ireland, N.J.: Optimal income tax in the presence of status effects. J. Public. Econ. 81, 193–212 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ledyard, J.O.: Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In: Kagel, J.H., Roth, A.E. (eds.) The Handbook of Experimental Economics, pp 111–194. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1995)Google Scholar
  26. Lind, JT: Fractionalization and the size of government. J. Public. Econ. 91, 51–76 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mankiw, N., Weinzierl, M., Yagan, D.: Optimal taxation in theory and practice. J. Econ. Perspect. 23, 147–74 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meltzer, A.H., Richard, S.F.: A rational theory of the size of government. J. Polit. Econ. 89, 914–927 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tyran, J., Sausgruber, R.: A little fairness may induce a lot of redistribution in democracy. Eur. Econ. Rev. 50, 469–485 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wendner, R., Goulder, L.H.: Status effects, public goods provision and excess burden. J. Public. Econ. 92, 1968–85 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics505A Stokely Management Center University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Economics and FinanceNanjing Audit UniversityPukou DistrictPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations