Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9k27k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T09:02:25.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Promoting justice by treating people unequally: an experimental study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Alice Becker  and
Luis M. Miller
Alice Becker*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute of Economics, Kahlaische Straße 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Luis M. Miller*
Affiliation:
Centre for Experimental Social Sciences, Nuffield College, University of Oxford, New Road, OX1 1NF, Oxford, UK
*
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Which inequalities among individuals are considered unjust? This paper reports the results of an experiment designed to study distributive choices dealing with arbitrarily unequal initial endowments. In a three-person distribution problem where subjects either know or do not know their endowments, we find impartial behavior to be a stable pattern. Subjects either compensate for initial inequalities fully or not at all in both conditions, and they do so more often when they do not know their endowment than when they know it. Moreover, the type and the size of the good to be distributed also affect the frequency of impartial behavior.

Keywords

Veil of ignoranceImpartial behaviorDistributive justiceProcedural fairness

JEL classification

C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 437 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10683-009-9222-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Beckman, S. R., Formby, J. P., Smith, W. J., & Zheng, B. (2002). Envy, Malice and Pareto efficiency: An experimental examination. Social Choice and Welfare, 19, 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, J. E., Daley, L. A., Dickhaut, J.W., & O'Brien, J. R. (1986). Controlling risk preferences for lotteries on units of experimental exchange. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101(2), 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. E., Brandts, J., & Ockenfels, A. (2005). Fair procedures: evidence from games involving lotteries. The Economic Journal, 115(506), 1054–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelen, A. W., Hole, A. D., Sorensen, E. O., & Tungodden, B. (2007). The pluralism of fairness ideals: an experimental approach. American Economic Review, 97(3), 818–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. C., Roberson, B., & Smith, V. L. (1982). Theory and behavior of single unit auctions. In Smith, V. L. (Ed.). Research in experimental economics (Vol. 2 pp. 1–43). Greenwich: JAI.Google Scholar
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (forthcoming). Individual risk attitudes: New evidence from a large, representative, experimentally-validated survey. Journal of the European Economic Association.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. (Forthcoming). Social preferences beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public good experiments. American Economics Review.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fröhlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. A. (1992). Choosing justice. An experimental approach to ethical theory. Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J. A., & Kurki, A. (2004). Modeling other-regarding preferences and an experimental test. Public Choice, 119, 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In Kremer, K. & Macho, V.. Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen (pp. 79–93). GWDG Bericht 63. Ges. für Wiss. Datenverarbeitung, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. (1975). Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? American Political Science Review, 69, 599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karni, E., Salmon, T., & Sopher, B. (2008). Individual sense of fairness: an experimental study. Experimental Economics, 11 (2), 174–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konow, J. (2000). Fair shares and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. American Economic Review, 90(4), 1072–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krawczyk, M. (2007). A glimpse through the veil of ignorance: equality of opportunity and support for redistribution. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutström, E. E., & Williams, M. B. (2000). Entitlements and fairness: an experimental study of distributive preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43(1), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E., & Malouf, M. W. K. (1979). Game-theoretic models and the role of information in bargaining. Psychological Review, 86, 574–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, H. P. (1994). Equity in theory and practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Becker and Miller supplementary material

Instructions
Download Becker and Miller supplementary material(File)
File 621.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Becker and Miller supplementary material

Becker and Miller supplementary material 1
Download Becker and Miller supplementary material(File)
File 25.9 KB