State dependence in sequential equity judgements
Tóm tắt
We report the results from a questionnaire-type experiment designed to elicit whether individuals decide in accordance with the equity axiom constituent for Rawls’s second principle. The experiment is sequential in nature. Hence it generates panel data. We use recently developed panel data methods for studying the role that state dependence and unobservable individual-specific effects play for the observed equity judgements. The results indicate that a dominant share of our probants initially adhere to Hammond’s equity axiom, but that many of these leave the Rawlsian position at later stages of the experiment. Although state dependence plays a significant role it cannot alone explain the observed decision behavior. Individual-specific effects are also important.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aprahamian F, Chanel O, Luchini S (2007) Modeling starting point bias as unobserved heterogeneity in contingent valuation surveys: an application to air pollution. Am J Agric Econ 89(2): 533–547
Chamberlain G (1985) Heterogeneity, omitted variable bias, and duration dependence. In: Heckman JJ, Singer B Longitudinal analysis of labor market data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cialdini RB, Rost MR, Newsom JT (1995) Preference for consistency: the development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. J Person Soc Psychol 69(2): 318–328
Deschamps R, Gevers R (1978) Leximin and Utilitarian rules: a joint characterization. J Econ Theory 17: 143–163
Frohlich N, Oppenheimer J, Eavey C (1987a) Choices of principles of distributive justice in experimental groups. Am J Polit Sci 31: 606–636
Frohlich N, Oppenheimer J, Eavey C (1987b) Laboratory results on Rawls’s principle of distributive justice. Br J Polit Sci 17(1): 1–21
Gaertner W (1992) Distributive judgements. In: Gaertner W, Klemisch-Ahlert M Social choice and bargaining perspectives on distributive justice, chap 2. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, New York
Gaertner W (1994) Distributive justice: theoretical foundations and empirical findings. Eur Econ Rev 38: 711–720
Gaertner W, Jungeilges J, Neck R (2001) Cross-cultural equity evaluations: a questionnaire-experimental approach. Eur Econ Rev 45: 953–963
Heckman JJ (1981) Statistical models for discrete panel data. In: Manski CF, McFadden D (eds) Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric application, chap 3. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 115–178
Herriges JA, Shogren JF (1996) Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manag 30(1): 112–131
Honoré BE, Kyriazidou E (2000) Panel data discrete choice models with lagged dependent variables. Econometrica 68(4): 839–874
Jungeilges J, Theisen T (2005) Equity judgements elicited through experiments: an econometric examination. In: Agarwal B, Vercelli A (eds) Psychology, rationality and economic behavior: challenging standard assumptions. Palgrave Macmillan, Cambridge, UK, pp 195–241
Jungeilges J, Theisen T (2006) State dependence in sequential equity judgements, Working Paper 2006:1, Department of Economics and Business Administration, School of Management, Agder University College, Service boks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, Norway
Jungeilges JA, Theisen T (2008) A comparative study of equity judgements in Lithuania and Norway. J Socio-Econom 37(3): 1090–1118
Konow J (2003) Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. J Econ Lit 41(4): 1186–1237
Magnac T (2000) Subsidised training and youth employment: distinguishing unobserved heterogeneity from state dependence in labour market histories. Econ J 110: 805–837
Mood AM, Graybill FA, Boes DC (1974) Introduction to the theory of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Yaari M, Bar-Hillel M (1984) On dividing justly. Soc Choice Welf 1: 1–24