The Political Psychology of Redistribution

Edward J. McCaffery, J. Baron
{"title":"The Political Psychology of Redistribution","authors":"Edward J. McCaffery, J. Baron","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.695305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Welfare economics suggests that the tax system is the appropriate place to effect redistribution from those with more command over material resources to those with less - that is, in short, to serve \"equity.\" Society should set other mechanisms of private and public law, including public finance systems, to maximize welfare - that is, in short, to serve \"efficiency.\" The populace, however, may not always accept first-best policies. Perspectives from cognitive psychology suggest that ordinary citizens can react to the purely formal means by which social policies are implemented, and thus may reject welfare-improving reforms. This Article sets out the general background of the problem. We present the results of original experiments that confirm that the means of implementing redistribution affect its acceptability. Effects range from such seemingly trivial matters as whether or not tax burdens are discussed in dollars or in percent terms, to more substantial matters such as how many different individual taxes there are, whether the burden of taxes is transparent or not, and the nature and level of the public provision of goods and services. The findings suggest a deep and problematic tension between the goals of equity and efficiency in public finance.","PeriodicalId":390004,"journal":{"name":"University of Southern California Center for Law & Social Science (CLASS) Law & Economics Research Paper Series","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"44","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Southern California Center for Law & Social Science (CLASS) Law & Economics Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.695305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44

Abstract

Welfare economics suggests that the tax system is the appropriate place to effect redistribution from those with more command over material resources to those with less - that is, in short, to serve "equity." Society should set other mechanisms of private and public law, including public finance systems, to maximize welfare - that is, in short, to serve "efficiency." The populace, however, may not always accept first-best policies. Perspectives from cognitive psychology suggest that ordinary citizens can react to the purely formal means by which social policies are implemented, and thus may reject welfare-improving reforms. This Article sets out the general background of the problem. We present the results of original experiments that confirm that the means of implementing redistribution affect its acceptability. Effects range from such seemingly trivial matters as whether or not tax burdens are discussed in dollars or in percent terms, to more substantial matters such as how many different individual taxes there are, whether the burden of taxes is transparent or not, and the nature and level of the public provision of goods and services. The findings suggest a deep and problematic tension between the goals of equity and efficiency in public finance.
再分配的政治心理学
福利经济学认为,税收制度是实现物质资源再分配的合适场所,从拥有更多物质资源的人向拥有较少物质资源的人再分配——简而言之,就是服务于“公平”。社会应该建立私法和公法的其他机制,包括公共财政体系,以最大限度地提高福利——简而言之,为“效率”服务。然而,民众可能并不总是接受最好的政策。认知心理学的观点表明,普通公民可以对社会政策实施的纯粹形式手段做出反应,因此可能会拒绝改善福利的改革。本文阐述了问题的一般背景。我们提出了原始实验的结果,证实了实现再分配的手段会影响其可接受性。影响范围从看似微不足道的问题,如税负是否以美元或百分比来讨论,到更实质性的问题,如有多少种不同的个税,税收负担是否透明,以及公共提供商品和服务的性质和水平。调查结果表明,公共财政的公平目标和效率目标之间存在着深刻而有问题的紧张关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信