the egalitarian ape: welfare state games and the preference for equality

University of CologneUniversity of Cologne

Department of Economic andDepartment of Economic and

Social PsychologySocial Psychology

The Egalitarian Ape: Welfare State Games and the The Egalitarian Ape: Welfare State Games and the Preference for EqualityPreference for Equality

Sebastian LotzUniversity of Cologne

Detlef FetchenhauerUniversity of Cologne, University of Groningen

2

The typical welfare stateThe typical welfare state

• Economies & societies create wealth which most of them decide to partly redistribute

• Individual members possess different input factors (labor, capital, knowledge) and create a different amounts of wealth

• Redistribution through social security, taxes, donations

• Usually: Cost of Redistribution

3

Welfare state gameWelfare state game

Equality Wealth

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2

4


Overall WealthEquality

36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2

5

Motivational FactorsMotivational Factors

1. Maximization of individual payoff

2. Maximization of group payoff (overall wealth)

3. Maximization of equality (due to inequality aversion)

WOLF IN SHEEP‘S CLOTHING; Maximizing individual payoff can be justified by other arguments

6



36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2

Maximization of Equality

7



36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2

Maximization of Overall Payoff


8



36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2Maximization of Individual Payoff



9



36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16




10



36Wealth

44

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16




11

What others found…What others found…

• As a social good, distributive justice is more attractive than overall wealth (efficiency)(Bolton & Ockenfels, 2002)

• Half of the people prefer the equal distribution in the game, the majority of them however is motivated by pure self-interest (Biniossek & Fetchenhauer, 2007)

12


Equality Wealth

Rich 14 26

Middle Class 12 16

Poor 10 2

Benevolent Dictator (Equality or Wealth?)

13

Experimental DesignExperimental Design

• N = 216 students at the University of Cologne

• Between subjects design

• Random draw decided who‘s decision will be enforced in the group

• Accountability: Students were to write down their argumentation which was distributed among the group members used for qualitative analysis

• 3 ECU = 1 Euro actual payoff, All benevolent dictators participated in a lottery being able to win, 200, 150, or 100 ECU

• Additional questionnaire

14

Results: Decision by PersonResults: Decision by Person

15


16


17


18

Self-rating of morality (7-point scale)Self-rating of morality (7-point scale)

19

Who used fairness-based arguments?Who used fairness-based arguments?

20

Who used wealth-argument?Who used wealth-argument?

21

Hardly any deep thoughts…Hardly any deep thoughts…

22

Who used selfish argumentations?Who used selfish argumentations?

23

Reasoning behind the resultsReasoning behind the results

• Social Intuitist Model

• Fast and automatic intuitions are the primary source of moral evaluations (Haidt, 2001)

• „Do no harm“ – heuristics (intention)

• People hesitate to harm small groups of a society even if a (large) majority benefits

• Inequality aversion (outcome)

• People disregard distributions which unjustifiably put some people better of than others (even if this would yield a Pareto improvement)

24

ImplicationsImplications

• Intuitive fairness/moral judgment is main determinant of the acceptance of socioeconomic policy (Haferkamp et al, 2007)

• Efficiency almost seems irrelevant to the people

• Decisions based on morality do not always seem economically right (repetition of the game, substantial losses of wealth)

25

SummarySummary

• Distributions are not only selected due to maximization of individual payoff

• Accountability might reduce egoism, self-interest

• Generally „fair“ distributions are preferred even if this means to leave money on the table.

• Ambiguity of fairness is not seen

• In reality the fair solution is not as obvious, because wealth has to be compiled, individuals are unequally talented, etc.

the egalitarian ape: welfare state games and the preference for equality

Documents