IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/119632.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Higher income individuals are more generous when local economic inequality is high

Author

Listed:
  • Suss, Joel H.

Abstract

There is ongoing debate about whether the relationship between income and pro-social behaviour depends on economic inequality. Studies investigating this question differ in their conclusions but are consistent in measuring inequality at aggregated geographic levels (i.e. at the state, region, or country-level). I hypothesise that local, more immediate manifestations of inequality are important for driving pro-social behaviour, and test the interaction between income and inequality at a much finer geographical resolution than previous studies. I first analyse the charitable giving of US households using ZIP-code level measures of inequality and data on tax deductible charitable donations reported to the IRS. I then examine whether the results generalise using a large-scale UK household survey and neighbourhood-level inequality measures. In both samples I find robust evidence of a significant interaction effect, albeit in the opposite direction as that which has been previously postulated-higher income individuals behave more pro-socially rather than less when local inequality is high.

Suggested Citation

  • Suss, Joel H., 2023. "Higher income individuals are more generous when local economic inequality is high," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119632, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:119632
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/119632/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wilson, William Julius, 2012. "The Truly Disadvantaged," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 2, number 9780226901268, December.
    2. A. Abigail Payne & Justin Smith, 2015. "Does income inequality increase charitable giving?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 793-818, May.
    3. Ping Xu & James C. Garand, 2010. "Economic Context and Americans' Perceptions of Income Inequality," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1220-1241, December.
    4. Kuhn, Andreas, 2011. "In the eye of the beholder: Subjective inequality measures and individuals' assessment of market justice," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 625-641.
    5. Ping Xu & James C. Garand, 2010. "Economic Context and Americans' Perceptions of Income Inequality," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(s1), pages 1220-1241.
    6. Benjamin J. Newman & Christopher D. Johnston & Patrick L. Lown, 2015. "False Consciousness or Class Awareness? Local Income Inequality, Personal Economic Position, and Belief in American Meritocracy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(2), pages 326-340, February.
    7. Facundo Alvaredo & Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez & Lucas Chancel & Gabriel Zucman, 2018. "World Inequality Report 2018," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01885458, HAL.
    8. James Andreoni & Nikos Nikiforakis & Jan Stoop, 2021. "Higher socioeconomic status does not predict decreased prosocial behavior in a field experiment," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-8, December.
    9. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01053609 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Stephen Ansolabehere & Marc Meredith & Erik Snowberg, 2014. "Mecro-Economic Voting: Local Information and Micro-Perceptions of the Macro-Economy," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 380-410, November.
    11. Martin Korndörfer & Boris Egloff & Stefan C. Schmukle, 2015. "A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior," Working Papers 1601, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    12. Martin Korndörfer & Boris Egloff & Stefan C. Schmukle, 2015. "A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 808, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    13. James Andreoni & Nikos Nikiforakis & Jan Stoop, 2017. "Are the Rich More Selfish than the Poor, or Do They Just Have More Money? A Natural Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 23229, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fehr, Dietmar & Rau, Hannes & Trautmann, Stefan T. & Xu, Yilong, 2020. "Inequality, fairness and social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Antinyan, Armenak & Baghdasaryan, Vardan & Grigoryan, Aleksandr, 2022. "Charitable giving, social capital, and positional concerns," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. Gereke, Johanna & Schaub, Max & Baldassarri, Delia, 2018. "Ethnic diversity, poverty and social trust in Germany: Evidence from a behavioral measure of trust," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15.
    4. Antonio Tintori & Giulia Ciancimino & Rossella Palomba & Cristiana Clementi & Loredana Cerbara, 2021. "The Impact of Socialisation on Children’s Prosocial Behaviour. A Study on Primary School Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-14, November.
    5. Peter Calcagno & Alexander Marsella & Yang Zhou, 2024. "Income inequality and party alternation: State‐level evidence from the United States," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 42(2), pages 355-374, April.
    6. Vladimir Gimpelson & Daniel Treisman, 2018. "Misperceiving inequality," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 27-54, March.
    7. Rockenbach, Bettina & Tonke, Sebastian & Weiss, Arne R., 2021. "Self-serving behavior of the rich causes contagion effects among the poor," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 289-300.
    8. Michał Litwiński & Rafał Iwański & Łukasz Tomczak, 2023. "Acceptance for Income Inequality in Poland," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 166(2), pages 381-412, April.
    9. Matías Strehl Pessina, 2022. "Sectores de altos ingresos y preferencias por redistribución," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 22-15, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    10. Johanna Gereke & Max Schaub & Delia Baldassarri, 2018. "Ethnic diversity, poverty and social trust in Germany: Evidence from a behavioral measure of trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, July.
    11. Elisabeth Gsottbauer & Daniel Müller & Samuel Müller & Stefan T. Trautmann & Galina Zudenkova, 2020. "Social class and (un)ethical behavior: Causal versus correlational evidence," Working Papers 2020-10, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    12. Yanli Wang & Chao Yang & Yanchi Zhang & Xiaoyong Hu, 2021. "Socioeconomic Status and Prosocial Behavior: The Mediating Roles of Community Identity and Perceived Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-11, September.
    13. Christian T. Elbæk & Panagiotis Mitkidis & Lene Aarøe & Tobias Otterbring, 2023. "Subjective socioeconomic status and income inequality are associated with self-reported morality across 67 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    14. N Lettinga & P O Jacquet & J-B André & N Baumand & C Chevallier, 2020. "Environmental adversity is associated with lower investment in collective actions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-23, July.
    15. Shan Zhang & Xinlei Zang & Sainan Zhang & Feng Zhang, 2022. "Social Class Priming Effect on Prosociality: Evidence from Explicit and Implicit Measures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-9, March.
    16. Cha, Moon-Kyung & Yi, Youjae & Lee, Jaehoon, 2020. "When people low in social class become a persuasive source of communication: Social class of other donors and charitable donations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 45-55.
    17. Wang, Hongxia & Wang, Yuhui & Nie, Jia & Lei, Li, 2021. "Family socioeconomic status and internet altruistic behavior among Chinese adolescents: The mediating effect of personal belief in a just world and emotional intelligence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    18. He, Ling & Tan, Chee-Seng & Pung, Pit-Wan & Hu, Jie & Tang, Hai-Bo & Cheng, Siew-May, 2023. "The role of parental rejection and poverty in the development of prosocial behavior among left-behind adolescents in rural China," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    19. Kerim Peren Arin & Juan A. Lacomba & Francisco Lagos & Deni Mazrekaj & Marcel Thum, 2021. "Misperceptions and Fake News during the Covid-19 Pandemic," CESifo Working Paper Series 9066, CESifo.
    20. Annalena Oppel, 2023. "Communication matters: sensitivity in fairness evaluations across wealth inequality expressions and levels," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2023-86, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:119632. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.