Suchergebnisse

I conduct a pre-registered online survey experiment with a representative sample of the US population to study the relationship between people's beliefs about the size of the gender wage gap and their demand for policies aimed at mitigating it. While the correlation between beliefs and policy demand is strong, the corresponding causal effect accounts for a minor share of the differences in policy demand across the political spectrum and by gender. Instead, correlational evidence suggests a larger role for deeply-rooted world views and preferences. I document that selective information acquisition may sustain individual beliefs in line with these preferences.

Abstract
We study the role of perceived trade-offs between human lives and economic benefits in shaping policy views. In an online experiment with a representative sample from the United States conducted during the early Covid-19 pandemic, we provide randomised information on the medium-run costs of restricting economic activity to mitigate infections. A one standard deviation lower perceived economic cost of lockdowns increases support by about twice as much as having a Covid at-risk condition, and by half as much as being a Democrat. Varying projected health benefits has a similar effect. Personal exposure to health risks reduces people's responsiveness to cost-benefit considerations.

We study the role of cost-benefit considerations in driving public acceptance of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) during the Covid-19 pandemic. In a large-scale online survey experiment with a representative sample of the US population, we introduce exogenous variation in the perceived economic costs and health benefits of shutdown measures by informing a random half of our sample about relevant research evidence. We find that a one standard deviation decrease in perceived economic costs (increase in perceived health benefits) of shutdown measures increases the preferred shutdown length by 13 (11) days. These effects are substantial, corresponding to two times the effect of having a Covid at-risk condition and to approximately half of the Democrat-Republican difference in the support of NPIs. Individuals with an acute and immediate personal exposure to the crisis, either in the form of health at-risk conditions or job loss, however, are less responsive to cost-benefit considerations. Our results provide insights into the mechanisms determining public acceptance of pandemic response measures.

We study the role of perceived trade-offs between human lives and economic benefits in shaping policy views. In an online experiment with a representative sample from the US conducted during the early Covid-19 pandemic, we provide randomized information on the medium-run costs of restricting economic activity to mitigate infections. A one standard deviation lower perceived economic cost of lockdowns increases support by about twice as much as having a Covid at-risk condition, and by half as much as being a Democrat. Varying projected health benefits has a similar effect. Personal exposure to health risks reduces people's responsiveness to cost-benefit considerations.

We examine how beliefs about the debt-to-GDP ratio affect people's attitudes towards government spending and taxation. Using representative samples of the US population, we run a series of experiments in which we provide half of our respondents with information about the debt-to-GDP ratio in the US. Based on a total of more than 4,000 respondents, we find that most people underestimate the debt-to-GDP ratio and reduce their support for government spending once they learn about the actual amount of debt, but do not substantially alter their attitudes towards taxation. The treatment effects seem to operate through changes in expectations about fiscal sustainability and persist in a four-week follow-up.

We examine how beliefs about the debt-to-GDP ratio affect people's attitudes towards government spending and taxation. Using representative samples of the US population, we run a series of experiments in which we provide half of our respondents with information about the debt-to-GDP ratio in the US. Based on a total of more than 4,000 respondents, we find that most people underestimate the debt-to-GDP ratio and reduce their support for government spending once they learn about the actual amount of debt, but do not substantially alter their attitudes towards taxation. The treatment effects seem to operate through changes in expectations about fiscal sustainability and persist in a four-week follow-up.