IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v40y2013i4p957-984.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Thresholds, productivity, and context: an experimental study on determinants of distributive behaviour

Author

Listed:
  • Marlies Ahlert
  • Katja Funke
  • Lars Schwettmann

Abstract

In our questionnaire experiment we confronted students of economics, law and medicine with distributive situations in different contexts characterised by two features inspired by medical decision problems: First, individual threshold values indicate minimal amounts needed by potential recipients of the given resource to obtain positive benefits. Second, recipients differ with respect to their ability to benefit from the given quantity, which indicates the productivity of the resource. Allocations offered in the questionnaire are theoretically grounded. However, respondents were also able to make their own proposals. Well-known allocation rules, but also new procedures, were witnessed. Two multistage principles were most prominent: After distributing all minimal amounts, in a second step one aims for resource-equality while the other principle in the second step demands the maximisation of the sum of payoffs. Besides threshold values and productivity, the acceptance of different principles also depended on the field of study, the degree of scarcity of the resources and the sequential order of situations. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Marlies Ahlert & Katja Funke & Lars Schwettmann, 2013. "Thresholds, productivity, and context: an experimental study on determinants of distributive behaviour," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(4), pages 957-984, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:40:y:2013:i:4:p:957-984
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-012-0652-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00355-012-0652-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-012-0652-8?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dirk Engelmann & Martin Strobel, 2004. "Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 857-869, September.
    2. Konow, James, 2001. "Fair and square: the four sides of distributive justice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 137-164, October.
    3. Amiel,Yoram & Cowell,Frank, 1999. "Thinking about Inequality," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521466967.
    4. Faravelli, Marco, 2007. "How context matters: A survey based experiment on distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1399-1422, August.
    5. Rainer Winkelmann & Stefan Boes, 2006. "Analysis of Microdata," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-540-29607-2, June.
    6. Erik Schokkaert & Kurt Devooght, 2003. "Responsibility-sensitive fair compensation in different cultures," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(2), pages 207-242, October.
    7. Xavier Cuadras‐Morató & José‐Luis Pinto‐Prades & José‐María Abellán‐Perpiñán, 2001. "Equity considerations in health care: the relevance of claims," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 187-205, April.
    8. James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
    9. Harsanyi, John C, 1978. "Bayesian Decision Theory and Utilitarian Ethics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 223-228, May.
    10. Wagstaff, Adam, 1991. "QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 21-41, May.
    11. Aki Tsuchiya & Paul Dolan, 2009. "Equality of what in health? Distinguishing between outcome egalitarianism and gain egalitarianism," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 147-159, February.
    12. Hammond, Peter J, 1976. "Equity, Arrow's Conditions, and Rawls' Difference Principle," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(4), pages 793-804, July.
    13. Marlies Ahlert & Stefan Felder & Bodo Vogt, 2012. "Which patients do I treat? An experimental study with economists and physicians," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-11, December.
    14. Jochen Jungeilges & Wulf Gaertner, 2002. "Evaluation via extended orderings: Empirical findings from Western and Eastern Europe," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(1), pages 29-55.
    15. Jose‐Maria Abellan‐Perpiñan & Jose‐Luis Pinto‐Prades, 1999. "Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 701-707, December.
    16. Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
    17. Williams, Alan & Cookson, Richard, 2000. "Equity in health," Handbook of Health Economics, in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 35, pages 1863-1910, Elsevier.
    18. Culyer, A. J. & Wagstaff, Adam, 1993. "Equity and equality in health and health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 431-457, December.
    19. Binmore, Ken & Morgan, Peter & Snaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1991. "Do people exploit their bargaining power? An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 295-322, August.
    20. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(4), pages 309-309.
    21. Wulf Gaertner & Lars Schwettmann, 2007. "Equity, Responsibility and the Cultural Dimension," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 627-649, November.
    22. Gaertner, Wulf & Jungeilges, Jochen & Neck, Reinhard, 2001. "Cross-cultural equity evaluations: A questionnaire-experimental approach," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(4-6), pages 953-963, May.
    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. Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Wiesen, Daniel, 2014. "Other-regarding behavior and motivation in health care provision: An experiment with medical and non-medical students," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 156-165.
    2. Jeremiah Hurley & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mita Giacomini & Deirdre DeJean & Michel Grignon, 2017. "Non-market resource allocation and the public’s interpretation of need: an empirical investigation in the context of health care," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 117-143, June.
    3. Sibilla Di Guida & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Anne Sophie Oxholm, 2019. "Testing the myth of fee‐for‐service and overprovision in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 717-722, May.
    4. Angerer, Silvia & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Waibel, Christian, 2023. "Framing and subject pool effects in healthcare credence goods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Silvia Angerer & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Christian Waibel, 2021. "Trust in health care credence goods: Experimental evidence on framing and subject pool effects," Working Papers 2021-13, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    6. Ahlert, Marlies & Pfarr, Christian, 2014. "Attitudes of Germans towards distributive issues in the German health system," MPRA Paper 56881, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Becchetti Leonardo & Antoni Giacomo Degli & Ottone Stefania & Solferino Nazaria, 2018. "Performance, Luck and Equality: An Experimental Analysis of Subjects’ Preferences for Different Allocation Criteria," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(1), pages 1-14, January.
    8. Franziska Brendel & Lisa Einhaus & Franziska Then, 2021. "Resource scarcity and prioritization decisions in medical care: A lab experiment with heterogeneous patient types," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 470-477, February.
    9. Hermanns, Benedicta & Kokot, Johanna, 2023. "Contextual framing effects on risk aversion assessed using the bomb risk elicitation task," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).

    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. İbrahim Erdem SEÇİLMİŞ, 2014. "Seniority: A Blessing or A Curse? The Effect of Economics Training on the Perception of Distributive Justice," Sosyoekonomi Journal, Sosyoekonomi Society, issue 22(22).
    2. Lars Schwettmann, 2012. "Competing allocation principles: time for compromise?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 357-380, September.
    3. Jeremiah Hurley & Neil Buckley & Katherine Cuff & Mita Giacomini & David Cameron, 2011. "Judgments regarding the fair division of goods: the impact of verbal versus quantitative descriptions of alternative divisions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 341-372, July.
    4. Faravelli, Marco, 2007. "How context matters: A survey based experiment on distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1399-1422, August.
    5. James Konow, 2009. "Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis of justice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 101-127, June.
    6. Bleichrodt, Han & Doctor, Jason & Stolk, Elly, 2005. "A nonparametric elicitation of the equity-efficiency trade-off in cost-utility analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 655-678, July.
    7. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    8. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    9. Cox, James C. & Friedman, Daniel & Gjerstad, Steven, 2007. "A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 17-45, April.
    10. Stefan Traub & Christian Seidl & Ulrich Schmidt & Maria Levati, 2005. "Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding – or somebody else? An experimental investigation of distributive justice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(2), pages 283-309, April.
    11. Yoram Amiel & Frank Cowell & Wulf Gaertner, 2009. "To be or not to be involved: a questionnaire-experimental view on Harsanyi’s utilitarian ethics," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(2), pages 299-316, February.
    12. Jeremiah Hurley & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mita Giacomini & Deirdre DeJean & Michel Grignon, 2017. "Non-market resource allocation and the public’s interpretation of need: an empirical investigation in the context of health care," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(1), pages 117-143, June.
    13. MORENO-TERNERO, Juan & OSTERDAL, Lars P., 2014. "Normative foundations for equity-sensitive population health evaluation functions," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014031, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    14. Wulf Gaertner & Reinhard Neck & Lars Schwettmann, 2011. "Perceptions of Equity across Cultures and over Time: A Questionnaire-Experimental Approach," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, February.
    15. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    16. Abellán Perpiñán, José Mª & Sánchez Martínez,Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2007. "La medición del bienestar social relacionado con la salud/The Measurement of the Health Related Social Welfare," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 927-950, Diciembre.
    17. Sven Fischer, 2005. "Inequality Aversion in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Conflict Payoffs - A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis -," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-36, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    18. Emin Karagözoglu & Arno Riedl, 2010. "Information, Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," CESifo Working Paper Series 3133, CESifo.
    19. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2017. "A normative foundation for equity-sensitive health evaluation: The role of relative comparisons of health gains," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 19(5), pages 1009-1025, October.
    20. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.

    More about this item

    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:spr:sochwe:v:40:y:2013:i:4:p:957-984. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.