Conspicuous consumption and political regimes: Evidence from East and West Germany

Friehe, Tim; Mechtel, Mario

doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.01.005

Cited by 68 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that gambling was possible in both 6 Alpizar et al (2005) survey Costa Rican students and their results point towards women caring more about relative income and consumption than men. A similar finding is obtained by Corazzini et al (2012) and Friehe and Mechtel (2012). However, Pingle and Mitchell (2002) argue that gender did not influence the probability that a participant will show a positional concern for income based on their results from a survey.…”

Section: Relation To Literaturesupporting

confidence: 62%

“…We thereby contribute to the evolving literature on gender effects (see, e.g., Andreoni andVesterlund 2001, Croson andGneezy 2007) and comparisons between East and West German households (e.g., Alesina and Fuchs-Schündeln 2007, Brosig et al 2011, Friehe and Mechtel 2012, Ockenfels and Weimann 1999, Rainer and Siedler 2009, Torgler 2003. Our regression results suggest that women are much less interested in gambling.…”

Section: Relation To Literaturementioning

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gambling to leapfrog in status?

Friehe

Mechtel

2015

Rev Econ Household

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. JEL-Code: D120, D140, D620. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may

show abstract

Section: Relation To Literaturesupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Relation To Literaturementioning

confidence: 77%

Gambling to leapfrog in status?

Friehe

Mechtel

2015

Rev Econ Household

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From their answers he developed a cultural visibility index, which explained ~30% of the variation in total household expenditures. Since then, studies in Germany, South Africa, Indonesia, and the USA have supported his findings (Chandra et al, 2009; Friehe and Mechtel, 2014; Kaus, 2013; Roth, 2015): people spend resources to acquire goods that others notice because getting noticed enhances social status.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Individual health and the visibility of village economic inequality: Longitudinal evidence from native Amazonians in Bolivia

Undurraga

Nica

Zhang

et al. 2016

Economics & Human Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mounting evidence suggests that income inequality is associated with worse individual health. But does the visibility of inequality matter? Using data from a horticultural-foraging society of native Amazonians in Bolivia (Tsimane’), we examined whether village inequality in resources and behaviors with greater cultural visibility are more likely to bear a negative association with health than village inequality in less conspicuous resources. We draw on a nine-year annual panel (2002–2010) from 13 Tsimane’ villages for our main analysis, and an additional survey to gauge the cultural visibility of resources. We measured inequality using the Gini coefficient. We tested the robustness of our results using a shorter two-year annual panel (2008–2009) in another 40 Tsimane’ villages and another measure of inequality (coefficient of variation, CV). Behaviors with low cultural visibility (e.g., household farm area planted with staples) were less likely to be associated with individual health, compared to more conspicuous behaviors (e.g., expenditures in durable goods, consumption of domesticated animals). We find some evidence that property rights and access to resources matter, with inequality of privately-owned resources showing a larger effect on health. More inequality was associated with improved perceived health – maybe due to improved health prospects from increasing wealth – and worse anthropometric indicators. For example, a unit increase in the Gini coefficient of expenditures in durable goods was associated with 0.24 fewer episodes of stress and a six percentage-point lower probability of reporting illness. A one-point increase in the CV of village inequality in meat consumption was associated with a 4 and 3 percentage-point lower probability of reporting illness and being in bed due to illness, and a 0.05 SD decrease in age-sex standardized arm-muscle area. In small-scale, rural societies at the periphery of market economies, nominal economic inequality in resources bore an association with individual health, but did not necessarily harm perceived health. Economic inequalities in small-scale societies apparently matter, but a thick cultural tapestry of reciprocity norms and kinship ties makes their effects less predictable than in industrial societies.

show abstract

“…A recent literature suggests that culture and the political environment affect people's preferences for redistribution (Corneo, 2004;Alesina and FuchsSchündeln, 2007), attitudes toward democracy (Fuchs-Schündeln and Schün-deln, 2015), solidarity (Ockenfels and Weimann, 1999), moral standards (Falk 3 and Szech, 2013), conspicuous consumption (Friehe and Mechtel, 2014), or nancial risk taking (Osili and Paulson, 2008). It is, however, inherently dicult to meaningfully measure a causal eect of markets on people's preferences because preferences and institutions very likely co-evolve.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%