Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Social Justice Research 4/2019

11-06-2019

Is Perceived Equal Opportunity Corrosive for Support for Equal Outcomes? Individual-Based Evidence

Author: Raul Magni-Berton

Published in: Social Justice Research | Issue 4/2019

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

According to a long-standing school of thought, the improvement in equal opportunity is said to reduce the support for equality of outcomes. Yet, some scholars challenge this wisdom and maintain that equalizing opportunities introduces higher uncertainty about individuals’ future rank in their society, which, in turn, leads to more demand for equalizing incomes. Based on the 2013 survey of French residents (N = 4000), this paper argues that both claims are correct. Two pieces of evidence are provided. First, the relationship between perceived equality of opportunity and preference for equality of outcomes is asymmetrically U-shaped. Second, using split samples, this relationship proves to be decreasing among the poorest and increasing among the richest. The article provides some clues supporting the generalizability of such results, based on the analysis of the four waves of the International Social Survey Program in 27 countries.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Social position is used here as a general concept that includes social class, status, income and accumulated wealth.
 
2
This prediction is formulated by Benabou and Ok (2001). In their paper, they assume that agents are not (too) risk averse. Without this strong assumption, they acknowledge that equal opportunity leads to more demand for equalizing resources.
 
4
The estimates are also run using probit estimates leading to similar results.
 
5
Generally, there are very few missing values (the upper limit is 4.2%) and they are removed from the analysis. The only exception is for left–right placement.
 
6
More information is available in the offical Web site http://​w.​issp.​org/​menu-top/​home/​.
 
Literature
go back to reference Alesina, A., Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2004). Inequality and happiness: are Europeans and Americans different? Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 2009–2042.CrossRef Alesina, A., Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2004). Inequality and happiness: are Europeans and Americans different? Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 2009–2042.CrossRef
go back to reference Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E. L. (2004). Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E. L. (2004). Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 897–931.CrossRef Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 897–931.CrossRef
go back to reference Andrews, D., & Leigh, A. (2009). More inequality, less social mobility. Applied Economics Letters, 16(15), 1489–1492.CrossRef Andrews, D., & Leigh, A. (2009). More inequality, less social mobility. Applied Economics Letters, 16(15), 1489–1492.CrossRef
go back to reference Arneson, R. (2015). Equality of opportunity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Arneson, R. (2015). Equality of opportunity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
go back to reference Becker, A., & Miller, L. M. (2009). Promoting justice by treating people unequally: An experimental study. Experimental Economics, 12(4), 437–449.CrossRef Becker, A., & Miller, L. M. (2009). Promoting justice by treating people unequally: An experimental study. Experimental Economics, 12(4), 437–449.CrossRef
go back to reference Benabou, R., & Ok, A. (2001). Social mobility and the demand for redistribution: the POUM hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2, 447–487.CrossRef Benabou, R., & Ok, A. (2001). Social mobility and the demand for redistribution: the POUM hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2, 447–487.CrossRef
go back to reference Cappelen, A. W., Konow, J., Sørensen, E. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2013). Just luck: An experimental study of risk-taking and fairness. American Economic Review, 103(4), 1398–1413.CrossRef Cappelen, A. W., Konow, J., Sørensen, E. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2013). Just luck: An experimental study of risk-taking and fairness. American Economic Review, 103(4), 1398–1413.CrossRef
go back to reference Checchi, D., & Filippin, A. (2004). An experimental study of the POUM hypothesis. In F. Cowell (Ed.), Inequality, welfare and income distribution: Experimental approaches (research on economic inequality) (Vol. 11, pp. 115–136). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRef Checchi, D., & Filippin, A. (2004). An experimental study of the POUM hypothesis. In F. Cowell (Ed.), Inequality, welfare and income distribution: Experimental approaches (research on economic inequality) (Vol. 11, pp. 115–136). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRef
go back to reference Cohen, G. A. (2000). If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re so rich. The Journal of Ethics, 4(1–2), 1–26.CrossRef Cohen, G. A. (2000). If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re so rich. The Journal of Ethics, 4(1–2), 1–26.CrossRef
go back to reference Cusack, T., Iversen, T., & Rehm, P. (2006). Risk at work: The demand and supply sides of government redistribution. Oxford Review of Economic Policy., 22, 365–389.CrossRef Cusack, T., Iversen, T., & Rehm, P. (2006). Risk at work: The demand and supply sides of government redistribution. Oxford Review of Economic Policy., 22, 365–389.CrossRef
go back to reference Esarey, J., Salmon, T., & Barrilleaux, C. (2012). Social insurance and income redistribution in a laboratory experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 65(3), 685–698.CrossRef Esarey, J., Salmon, T., & Barrilleaux, C. (2012). Social insurance and income redistribution in a laboratory experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 65(3), 685–698.CrossRef
go back to reference Feri, F. (2012). A note on the POUM effect with heterogeneous social mobility. Economics Letters, 115(2), 258–262.CrossRef Feri, F. (2012). A note on the POUM effect with heterogeneous social mobility. Economics Letters, 115(2), 258–262.CrossRef
go back to reference Grimalda, G., Kar, A., & Proto, E. (2016). Procedural fairness in lotteries assigning initial roles in a dynamic setting. Experimental Economics, 19(4), 819–841.CrossRef Grimalda, G., Kar, A., & Proto, E. (2016). Procedural fairness in lotteries assigning initial roles in a dynamic setting. Experimental Economics, 19(4), 819–841.CrossRef
go back to reference Gugushvili, A. (2016). Intergenerational social mobility and popular explanations of poverty: A comparative perspective. Social Justice Research, 29(4), 402–428.CrossRef Gugushvili, A. (2016). Intergenerational social mobility and popular explanations of poverty: A comparative perspective. Social Justice Research, 29(4), 402–428.CrossRef
go back to reference Guillaud, E. (2012). Preferences for redistribution: an empirical analysis over 33 countries. Journal of Economic Inequality, 11, 57–78.CrossRef Guillaud, E. (2012). Preferences for redistribution: an empirical analysis over 33 countries. Journal of Economic Inequality, 11, 57–78.CrossRef
go back to reference Hartz, L. (1955). The liberal tradition in America: An interpretation of American political thought since the revolution. Brace: Harcourt. Hartz, L. (1955). The liberal tradition in America: An interpretation of American political thought since the revolution. Brace: Harcourt.
go back to reference Krawczyk, M. (2010). A glimpse through the veil of ignorance: Equality of opportunity and support for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 131–141.CrossRef Krawczyk, M. (2010). A glimpse through the veil of ignorance: Equality of opportunity and support for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 131–141.CrossRef
go back to reference Lefgren, L. J., Sims, D. P., & Stoddard, O. B. (2016). Effort, luck, and voting for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 143, 89–97.CrossRef Lefgren, L. J., Sims, D. P., & Stoddard, O. B. (2016). Effort, luck, and voting for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 143, 89–97.CrossRef
go back to reference Lefranc, A., Pistolesi, N., & Trannoy, A. (2009). Equality of opportunity and luck: Definitions and testable conditions, with an application to income in France. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1189–1207.CrossRef Lefranc, A., Pistolesi, N., & Trannoy, A. (2009). Equality of opportunity and luck: Definitions and testable conditions, with an application to income in France. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1189–1207.CrossRef
go back to reference Lelec, F., & Krawczyk, M. (2010). Give me a chance! An experiment in social decision under risk. Experimental Economics, 13(4), 500–511.CrossRef Lelec, F., & Krawczyk, M. (2010). Give me a chance! An experiment in social decision under risk. Experimental Economics, 13(4), 500–511.CrossRef
go back to reference Lipset, S., & Marks, G. (2000). It didn’t happen here: Why socialism failed in the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Lipset, S., & Marks, G. (2000). It didn’t happen here: Why socialism failed in the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
go back to reference Lipset, S. M. (1972). Social mobility and equal opportunity. The Public Interest, 29, 90. Lipset, S. M. (1972). Social mobility and equal opportunity. The Public Interest, 29, 90.
go back to reference Magni-Berton, R. (2014). Immigration, redistribution, and universal suffrage. Public Choice, 160(3–4), 391–409.CrossRef Magni-Berton, R. (2014). Immigration, redistribution, and universal suffrage. Public Choice, 160(3–4), 391–409.CrossRef
go back to reference Meltzer, A., & Richards, S. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economics, 89, 914–927.CrossRef Meltzer, A., & Richards, S. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economics, 89, 914–927.CrossRef
go back to reference Rehm, P. (2011). Social policy by popular demand. World Politics, 63(2), 271–299.CrossRef Rehm, P. (2011). Social policy by popular demand. World Politics, 63(2), 271–299.CrossRef
go back to reference Rodrik, D. (1998). Why do more open economies have bigger governments? Journal of Political Economy, 106, 997–1032.CrossRef Rodrik, D. (1998). Why do more open economies have bigger governments? Journal of Political Economy, 106, 997–1032.CrossRef
go back to reference Roemer, J. E., & Trannoy, A. (2015). Equality of opportunity. In Handbook of income distribution (pp. 217–300). Elsevier: Amsterdam. Roemer, J. E., & Trannoy, A. (2015). Equality of opportunity. In Handbook of income distribution (pp. 217–300). Elsevier: Amsterdam.
go back to reference Sombart, W. (1906). Why is there no socialism in the United States?. London: Macmillan. Sombart, W. (1906). Why is there no socialism in the United States?. London: Macmillan.
go back to reference Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Penguin. Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Penguin.
Metadata
Title
Is Perceived Equal Opportunity Corrosive for Support for Equal Outcomes? Individual-Based Evidence
Author
Raul Magni-Berton
Publication date
11-06-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Social Justice Research / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0885-7466
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6725
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-019-00337-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Social Justice Research 4/2019 Go to the issue