Gender and Redistribution: Experimental Evidence

Abstract

Gender differences in voting patterns and political attitudes towards redistribution are well-documented. The experimental gender literature suggests several plausible behavioral explanations behind these differences, relating to gender differences in confidence concerning future relative income position, risk aversion, and social preferences. We use data from lab experiments on preferences for redistribution conducted in the U.S. and several European countries to disentangle these potential mechanisms. We find that when choosing to redistribute income as a disinterested observer, women choose higher tax rates than men when initial income depends on performance in a task but not when it is randomly allocated. In a veil of ignorance condition with uncertainty about the income position of the decision maker, this effect is even stronger, leading to a 10ppt gender difference in average chosen tax rates in the performance conditions. We find that this gender difference is mainly due to men being more (over)confident about their task performance and the resulting income position, with gender differences in risk aversion and social preferences playing a minor role.JEL: C91, J16, H24, D31

Do China's people favour redistribution? Evidence from an incentivized experiment

“…There is, to be sure, the problem of explaining why the coefficient for risk aversion is of similar magnitude and significance for Part 1 as it is for Part 2 choices, although it is smaller and quite insignificant for Part 3. Buser et al () report the same situation when re‐analyzing the data of Durante et al and Grimalda et al, based on closely parallel experiments. They propose as an explanation (as with differential decisions across determinants of pre‐tax incomes, discussed in footnote 33) that when making Part 1 decisions most subjects may adopt the stance of a disinterested observer and ask themselves what they would wish the DI to do, were they one of the affected individuals.…”

“…Buser et al () also find that female subjects prefer more redistribution than males when an affected party behind a veil of ignorance in both the US data of Durante et al and the European data of Grimalda et al, and likewise find the significance of the variable declines when risk aversion, expected position and confidence are controlled. Their analysis of the issue suggests that lower overconfidence about position and greater risk aversion explain most if not all of the apparent gender difference in desire for redistribution in a closely similar experimental setting.…”

“…Buser, Grimalda, Putterman, and van der Weele () find evidence that the lower demand for redistribution under the “earned” methods in Part 2 of the data of Durante et al and Grimalda et al () is at least partly attributable to overconfidence on the parts of some subjects, especially male ones. They conjecture that similar behaviours in Part 1 might be due to subjects making decisions in that “disinterested observer” situation by trying to “put themselves in the shoes” of the affected parties.…”

Gendered redistribution and family debt: The ambiguities of a cash transfer program in Brazil

“…The idea that women are more responsible for distributing income for children's education and health is not exclusive to BF. The Brazilian discourses find resonances with those promoted by economists and nongovernmental organizations worldwide: When the subject is distributing money to the poor either via a public program or a private initiative, scholars consider women as a safer investment than men because they are perceived as more cautious and more prone to collective thinking (Buser, Putterman, and Van Der Weele ; Karim ; Keene et al ; Roy ). The particularity of BF is that it associates gender roles both to a private economic role (manager of family budgets, purchaser of food) and to public tasks (guarantor of children's access to rights like schooling and health care; redistributor of income).…”

Rejecting Non-Paternalist Motivation: An Experimental Test

“… 1 This article contributes to the experimental literature on paternalism (Ambuehl, Bernheim, and Ockenfels, 2021; Buser, Putterman, and van der Weele, 2016; Durante, Putterman, and Van der Weele, 2014) by considering how the motivation for imposing fairness views upon groups relates to the preferences of the affected. It introduces paternalist and non-paternalist motivation, which differs from the classic notion of paternalism as acting to avoid others from falling in harm’s way against their own will (Coons and Weber, 2013; Thaler and Sunstein, 2003).…”