IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joecag/v12y2018icp24-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who supports intergenerational redistribution policy? Evidence from old-age allowance system in Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Suwanrada, Worawet
  • Sukontamarn, Pataporn
  • Bangkaew, Busarin

Abstract

Thailand has become an ageing society, and currently there are continuing policy debates regarding the pension system. This paper investigates the determinants of preferences over an intergenerational redistribution policy in Thailand, namely the old-age allowance system. Since 2009 the old-age allowance system has been a non-contributory social pension scheme for all older persons except retired national and local government officials who receive pension monthly and older persons in public residential care facilities. The paper uses nationally representative data collected in 2011 under the project to investigate people’s knowledge of, and attitudes towards, the elderly. Employing logistic regression analysis, the paper looks into the factors correlated with: (1) whether an individual prefers the old-age allowance system to be universal or targeted, and (2) whether an individual is willing to pay more tax so that the elderly can receive more monthly allowance. The paper further divides the individuals into four groups based on the above two types of preferences, and uses multinomial logistic regression analysis to analyze the factors correlated with the likelihood of being in each group. The findings suggest that education, income, expectations regarding one’s own need for the old-age allowance in the future, together with knowledge, understanding, and attitudes towards older persons are key determinants of individuals’ preferences regarding the old-age allowance system.

Suggested Citation

  • Suwanrada, Worawet & Sukontamarn, Pataporn & Bangkaew, Busarin, 2018. "Who supports intergenerational redistribution policy? Evidence from old-age allowance system in Thailand," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 24-34.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joecag:v:12:y:2018:i:c:p:24-34
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jeoa.2017.11.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212828X17300890
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jeoa.2017.11.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Piketty, 1995. "Social Mobility and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 551-584.
    2. Roland Benabou & Efe A. Ok, 2001. "Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(2), pages 447-487.
    3. Corneo, Giacomo & Gruner, Hans Peter, 2002. "Individual preferences for political redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 83-107, January.
    4. Alberto Alesina & Paola Giuliano, 2010. "The power of the family," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 93-125, June.
    5. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    6. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    7. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Per-Olov Johansson, 1998. "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-647.
    8. Alesina, Alberto & La Ferrara, Eliana, 2005. "Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 897-931, June.
    9. Alberto F. Alesina & Paola Giuliano, 2009. "Preferences for Redistribution," NBER Working Papers 14825, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Worawet Suwanrada & Dharmapriya Wesumperuma, 2013. "The Challenges of the Old-age Allowance System in Thailand," One Pager 217, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
    11. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O’Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
    12. Ravallion, Martin & Lokshin, Michael, 2000. "Who wants to redistribute?: The tunnel effect in 1990s Russia," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 87-104, April.
    13. J. Bryant & A. Prohmmo, 2002. "Equal Contributions and Unequal Risks in a North-east Thai Village Funeral Society," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 63-75.
    14. Fumio Ohtake & Jun Tomioka, 2004. "Who Supports Redistribution?," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 333-354, December.
    15. Yamamura, Eiji, 2012. "Social capital, household income, and preferences for income redistribution," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 498-511.
    16. World Bank, 2016. "Live Long and Prosper," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 23133.
    17. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
    18. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    19. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 81, pages 752-767, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wiruj Somsopon & Sohee Minsun Kim & Vilas Nitivattananon & Kyoko Kusakabe & Thi Phuoc Lai Nguyen, 2022. "Issues and Needs of Elderly in Community Facilities and Services: A Case Study of Urban Housing Projects in Bangkok, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-23, July.
    2. Ce Shen & Jessica Johnson & Zhenhe Chi & John B. Williamson, 2020. "Does a universal non‐contributory social pension make sense for rural China?," International Social Security Review, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(2), pages 3-26, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yamamura, Eiji, 2012. "Social capital, household income, and preferences for income redistribution," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 498-511.
    2. Monica Bozzano & Simona Scabrosetti, 2024. "Preferences for Redistribution: Two Decades of Gender Gaps and Generational Differences in Europe," Working papers 113, Società Italiana di Economia Pubblica.
    3. Eiji Yamamura, 2014. "Trust in government and its effect on preferences for income redistribution and perceived tax burden," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 71-100, February.
    4. Eiji Yamamura, 2021. "Information of income position and its impact on perceived tax burden and preference for redistribution: An Internet Survey Experiment," Papers 2106.11537, arXiv.org.
    5. Cojocaru, Alexandru, 2014. "Prospects of upward mobility and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from the Life in Transition Survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 300-314.
    6. Yamamura, Eiji, 2012. "Effects of siblings and birth order on income redistribution preferences," MPRA Paper 38658, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Clark, Andrew E. & D'Ambrosio, Conchita, 2014. "Attitudes to Income Inequality: Experimental and Survey Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 8136, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Vladimir Gimpelson & Daniel Treisman, 2018. "Misperceiving inequality," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 27-54, March.
    9. Tina Haußen, 2014. "Yours, mine & ours - The role of gender and (equivalence) income in preferences for redistribution and public spending," Jena Economics Research Papers 2014-033, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    10. Neher, Frank, 2012. "Preferences for redistribution around the world," Discussion Papers 2012/2, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    11. Erzo F. P. Luttmer & Monica Singhal, 2011. "Culture, Context, and the Taste for Redistribution," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 157-179, February.
    12. Joan Costa-Font & Frank Cowell, 2015. "Social Identity And Redistributive Preferences: A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 357-374, April.
    13. Lionel Page & Daniel G. Goldstein, 2016. "Subjective beliefs about the income distribution and preferences for redistribution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(1), pages 25-61, June.
    14. Elvire Guillaud, 2011. "Preferences for redistribution : an empirical analysis," Post-Print halshs-00594072, HAL.
    15. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    16. Eiji Yamamura, 2015. "Norm for redistribution, social capital, and perceived tax burden: comparison between highand low-income households," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 6(2).
    17. Javier Olivera, 2015. "Preferences for redistribution in Europe," IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, December.
    18. Holger Stichnoth, 2012. "Does immigration weaken natives’ support for the unemployed? Evidence from Germany," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 631-654, June.
    19. Yamamura, Eiji, 2011. "Effect of social capital on income distribution preferences: comparison of neighborhood externality between high- and low-income households," MPRA Paper 32557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Neher, Frank, 2012. "Preferences for Redistribution around the World," Working Papers 26/2012, Universidade Portucalense, Centro de Investigação em Gestão e Economia (CIGE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    H3; I38; Intergenerational redistribution; Old-age allowance; Pension; Thailand;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H3 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joecag:v:12:y:2018:i:c:p:24-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-journal-of-the-economics-of-ageing .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.