Politically sustainable targeted transfers
- 152 Downloads
We show that a transfer received by a minority of the population may be sustained by majority voting, however small the minority targeted may be, when the attribution of the transfer is seen as stochastic by voters. We build a simple model wherein voters differ in income and vote over a proportional tax whose proceeds are distributed lump-sum, and each voter has a probability of receiving the transfer that depends on his income. In progressive steps, we present intuitively appealing sufficient conditions on this probability function for the social program to be supported by majority voting. We also develop intuitive conditions for the emergence of the “paradox of redistribution”, whereby more focused targeting reduces the size of the transfer program chosen by the majority. We finally apply our framework to the French social housing program and obtain that our model is consistent with a majority of French voters supporting a positive size for that program.
KeywordsParadox of redistribution A program for the poor is a poor program Majority voting Social housing in France
JEL ClassificationD72 H53 I38
- Adema, W., Fron, P., & Ladaique, M. (2011). Is the European welfare state really more expensive? Indicators on social spending, 1980–2012; and a manual to the OECD social expenditure database (SOCX). OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 124, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg2d2d4pbf0-en.
- Cardak, B., Glomm, G., & Ravikumar, B. (2013). Majority voting in a model of means testing. Mimeo. http://gatton.uky.edu/Units/Downloads/MeansTest-2013-11-21.pdf.
- France Stratégie. (2014). Quelle France dans dix ans? R éconcilier l’économique et le social. Report for the office of the French Prime Minister. http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/PartieB_Modele_social_FINAL_24062014.pdf.Google Scholar
- Gandelman, N., & Hernandez-Murillo, R. (2014). Risk aversion at the country level. Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis Working Paper 2014-05B.Google Scholar
- Gelbach, J. B., & Pritchett, L. H. (2002). Is more for the poor less for the poor? The politics of means-tested targeting. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0653.1027.
- Karagyozova, T., & Siegelman, P. (2012). Can propitious selection stabilize insurance markets? Journal of Insurance Issues, 35(2), 121–158.Google Scholar
- Marx, I., Salanauskaite, L., & Verbist, G. (2013). The paradox of redistribution revisited: And that it may rest in peace? IZA Discussion Paper 7414.Google Scholar
- Moffit, R. (2002). Economic effects of means-tested transfers in the U.S. In J. Poterba (Ed.), Tax policy and the economy (Vol. 16). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Sen, A. (1995). The political economy of targeting, chapter 2. In D. van de Walle & K. Nead (Eds.), Public spending and the poor. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
- Swaminathan, M., & Misra, N. (2001). Errors of targeting: Public distribution of food in a Maharashtra village, 1995–2000. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(26), 2447–2454.Google Scholar
- Trannoy, A., & Wasmer, E. (2013). La politique du logement locatif. Les notes du Conseil d’Analyse Economique, no 10.Google Scholar
- van de Walle, D., & Nead, K. (Eds.). (1995). Public spending and the poor. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar