IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/nattax/doi10.1086-719402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Is So Much Redistribution In-Kind and Not in Cash? Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Zachary Liscow
  • Abigail Pershing

Abstract

Economists often point to the superiority of cash over in-kind transfers as a means of redistribution because recipients can choose how to use these resources. However, among the trillions of dollars of annual US transfers, redistribution is mostly in-kind. We conducted a survey experiment to help explain why. Respondents considered an in-kind transfer that could be spent only on a bundle of “necessities.” The general population overwhelmingly preferred providing this in-kind transfer versus a cash transfer, largely for paternalistic reasons. This preference was common to a majority of virtually all segments of the general population, though not to a sample of educational elites. A persuasion treatment on the value of choice, while impactful, did not change this overall preference for in-kind. In a separate survey, below-poverty respondents preferred receiving cash. But the general population was willing to support a larger transfer in-kind than in cash. And below-poverty respondents appeared to prefer this larger in-kind transfer to the smaller cash transfer, suggesting that an in-kind transfer may be preferable to both recipients and the general population.

Suggested Citation

  • Zachary Liscow & Abigail Pershing, 2022. "Why Is So Much Redistribution In-Kind and Not in Cash? Evidence from a Survey Experiment," National Tax Journal, University of Chicago Press, vol. 75(2), pages 313-354.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:nattax:doi:10.1086/719402
    DOI: 10.1086/719402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/719402
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/719402
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/719402?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Liscow, Zachary & Fox, Edward, 2022. "The psychology of taxing capital income: Evidence from a survey experiment on the realization rule," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Zi Yang Kang & Mitchell Watt, 2024. "Optimal In-Kind Redistribution," Papers 2409.06112, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    3. Fontana, S.; & Guccio, C.; & Pignataro, G.; & Romeo, D.;, 2024. "Cash Transfers and Health Outcomes: Evidence from Italian Municipalities," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 24/04, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    4. Pamela Campa & Lucija Muehlenbachs, 2024. "Addressing Environmental Justice through In-Kind Court Settlements," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 415-446, February.
    5. Cristina Cattaneo & Daniela Grieco & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2024. "Out-group Penalties in Refugee Assistance: A Survey Experiment," NBER Working Papers 32139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:ucp:nattax:doi:10.1086/719402. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/NTJ .

    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.