What Motivates Political Preferences? Self‐Interest, Ideology, and Fairness in a Laboratory Democracy

Substantial prior literature has established that subjects in laboratory experiments are typically willing to sacrifice their own well being to make financial allocations more equal among participants. We test the applicability of this result in an environment that contains some of the key contextual issues that are usually excluded from more abstract games, but which might be important in situations involving income redistribution. Our general finding is that votes for a redistributive tax are almost entirely in accordance with self‐interest: above‐average earners vote for low tax rates and below‐average earners vote for high tax rates. A measure of subjects' preferences for fairness or equality, their self‐reported economic ideology, is not directly related to their voting behavior in this experiment. Because the ideology measure should be correlated with any intrinsic preferences regarding inequality aversion, we conclude that any preferences for fairness or inequality that our subjects possess are not strong enough to overcome self‐interest in this context. We do, however, find evidence for a possible indirect effect of ideology on choice behavior in that more conservative subjects tend to be more responsive to their self‐interest than the more liberal subjects.

[1]  R. McKelvey,et al.  Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games , 1995 .

[2]  E. Fehr,et al.  Do Workers Work More If Wages are High? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment , 2005 .

[3]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition , 2000 .

[4]  Jeffrey W. Smith A clear test of rational voting , 1975 .

[5]  J. Ledyard Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research , 1994 .

[6]  V. Smith,et al.  Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games , 1994 .

[7]  E. Proto,et al.  Everyone Wants a Chance : Initial Positions and Fairness in Ultimatum Games , 2012 .

[8]  Gianluca Grimalda,et al.  A cross-country experimental comparison of preferences for redistribution , 2011 .

[9]  Jean-Robert Tyran,et al.  Inequality aversion and voting on redistribution☆ , 2012, European economic review.

[10]  James Konow,et al.  A positive theory of economic fairness , 1996 .

[11]  U. Fischbacher z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments , 1999 .

[12]  Colin Camerer Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction , 2003 .

[13]  E. Fehr A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation , 1998 .

[14]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic , 1998 .

[15]  John A. List,et al.  Learning to Accept in Ultimatum Games: Evidence from an Experimental Design that Generates Low Offers , 2000 .

[16]  N. Frohlich,et al.  Skating on Thin Ice , 2006 .

[17]  Richard E. Matland,et al.  Doing Rawls Justice: An Experimental Study of Income Distribution Norms , 2003 .

[18]  Ernesto Reuben,et al.  Redistribution and market efficiency: An experimental study , 2013 .

[19]  Richard E. Matland,et al.  Just Deserts: An Experimental Study of Distributive Justice Norms , 2001 .

[20]  Timothy C. Salmon,et al.  The Incentive Effects of Inequality: An Experimental Investigation , 2012 .

[21]  J. Kagel,et al.  Handbook of Experimental Economics , 1997 .

[22]  Costas Meghir,et al.  Estimating labour supply responses using tax reforms , 1995 .

[23]  Kevin McCabe,et al.  On expectations and the monetary stakes in ultimatum games , 1996 .

[24]  S. Verba,et al.  Unemployment, Class Consciousness, and Radical Politics: What Didn't Happen in the Thirties , 1977, The Journal of Politics.

[25]  S. Zamir,et al.  Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study , 1991 .

[26]  Norman Frohlich,et al.  Laboratory Results on Rawls's Distributive Justice , 1987, British Journal of Political Science.

[27]  Norman Frohlich,et al.  Choosing Justice in Experimental Democracies with Production , 1990, American Political Science Review.

[28]  M. Rabin,et al.  Understanding Social Preference with Simple Tests , 2001 .

[29]  Timothy C. Salmon,et al.  Procedural fairness and the tolerance for income inequality , 2013 .

[30]  E. Plutzer,et al.  Gray Peril or Loyal Support? The Effects of the Elderly on Educational Expenditures* , 2004 .

[31]  R. McKelvey,et al.  A STATISTICAL THEORY OF EQUILIBRIUM IN GAMES , 1996 .

[32]  E. Fehr,et al.  Psychological Foundations of Incentives , 2002 .

[33]  Ernesto Reuben,et al.  Redistributive Politics and Market Efficiency: An Experimental Study , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[34]  J. Keith Murnighan,et al.  An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers , 1995 .

[35]  Esteban F. Klor,et al.  Social Identity and Preferences Over Redistribution , 2007 .

[36]  R. Blundell,et al.  Labor Supply: A Review of Alternative Approaches , 1998 .

[37]  J. Horowitz,et al.  Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments , 1994 .

[38]  R. Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. , 1960 .

[39]  When it's Not All About Me: Altruism, Participation, and Political Context , 2007 .

[40]  L. Cameron,et al.  Raising the Stakes in the Ultimatum Game: Experimental Evidence From Indonesia , 1999 .

[41]  Jonathan N. Katz,et al.  What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[42]  Costas Meghir,et al.  Estimating Labor Supply Responses Using Tax Reforms , 2007 .

[43]  Edward C. Banfield,et al.  Public-Regardingness as a Value Premise in Voting Behavior , 1964, American Political Science Review.

[44]  Ernst Fehr,et al.  Do Incentive Contracts Undermine Voluntary Cooperation? , 2002 .

[45]  Team or Individual: What Determines Workers' Preferred Bonus Schemes? , 2011, SSRN Electronic Journal.