State dependence in sequential equity judgements

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：J. A. Jungeilges (1)
  T. Theisen (1)
  
• 刊名：Social Choice and Welfare
• 出版年：2011
• 出版时间：June 2011
• 年：2011
• 卷：37
• 期：1
• 页码：97-119
• 全文大小：723KB
• 参考文献：1. Aprahamian F, Chanel O, Luchini S (2007) Modeling starting point bias as unobserved heterogeneity in contingent valuation surveys: an application to air pollution. Am J Agric Econ 89(2): 533-47 CrossRef
  2. Chamberlain G (1985) Heterogeneity, omitted variable bias, and duration dependence. In: Heckman JJ, Singer B Longitudinal analysis of labor market data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  3. Cialdini RB, Rost MR, Newsom JT (1995) Preference for consistency: the development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. J Person Soc Psychol 69(2): 318-28 CrossRef
  4. Deschamps R, Gevers R (1978) Leximin and Utilitarian rules: a joint characterization. J Econ Theory 17: 143-63 CrossRef
  5. Frohlich N, Oppenheimer J, Eavey C (1987a) Choices of principles of distributive justice in experimental groups. Am J Polit Sci 31: 606-36 CrossRef
  6. Frohlich N, Oppenheimer J, Eavey C (1987b) Laboratory results on Rawls’s principle of distributive justice. Br J Polit Sci 17(1): 1-1 CrossRef
  7. Gaertner W (1992) Distributive judgements. In: Gaertner W, Klemisch-Ahlert M Social choice and bargaining perspectives on distributive justice, chap 2. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, New York
  8. Gaertner W (1994) Distributive justice: theoretical foundations and empirical findings. Eur Econ Rev 38: 711-20 CrossRef
  9. Gaertner W, Jungeilges J, Neck R (2001) Cross-cultural equity evaluations: a questionnaire-experimental approach. Eur Econ Rev 45: 953-63 CrossRef
  10. Heckman JJ (1981) Statistical models for discrete panel data. In: Manski CF, McFadden D (eds) Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric application, chap 3. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 115-78
  11. Herriges JA, Shogren JF (1996) Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manag 30(1): 112-31 CrossRef
  12. Honoré BE, Kyriazidou E (2000) Panel data discrete choice models with lagged dependent variables. Econometrica 68(4): 839-74 CrossRef
  13. Jungeilges J, Theisen T (2005) Equity judgements elicited through experiments: an econometric examination. In: Agarwal B, Vercelli A (eds) Psychology, rationality and economic behavior: challenging standard assumptions. Palgrave Macmillan, Cambridge, UK, pp 195-41
  14. Jungeilges J, Theisen T (2006) State dependence in sequential equity judgements, Working Paper 2006:1, Department of Economics and Business Administration, School of Management, Agder University College, Service boks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, Norway
  15. Jungeilges JA, Theisen T (2008) A comparative study of equity judgements in Lithuania and Norway. J Socio-Econom 37(3): 1090-118 CrossRef
  16. Konow J (2003) Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. J Econ Lit 41(4): 1186-237 CrossRef
  17. Magnac T (2000) Subsidised training and youth employment: distinguishing unobserved heterogeneity from state dependence in labour market histories. Econ J 110: 805-37 CrossRef
  18. Mood AM, Graybill FA, Boes DC (1974) Introduction to the theory of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York
  19. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
  20. Yaari M, Bar-Hillel M (1984) On dividing justly. Soc Choice Welf 1: 1-4 CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：J. A. Jungeilges (1)
  T. Theisen (1)
  
  1. Department of Economics and Business Administration, University of Agder, Servicebox 422, 4604, Kristiansand S, Norway
  

文摘

We report the results from a questionnaire-type experiment designed to elicit whether individuals decide in accordance with the equity axiom constituent for Rawls’s second principle. The experiment is sequential in nature. Hence it generates panel data. We use recently developed panel data methods for studying the role that state dependence and unobservable individual-specific effects play for the observed equity judgements. The results indicate that a dominant share of our probants initially adhere to Hammond’s equity axiom, but that many of these leave the Rawlsian position at later stages of the experiment. Although state dependence plays a significant role it cannot alone explain the observed decision behavior. Individual-specific effects are also important.