109028, Moscow, Pokrovsky Boulevard 11, T423
Phone: +7 (495) 621 13 42,
+ 7(495) 772 95 90 *27200; *27212.
Alexander S. Belenky.
Zlotnik A.A., Zlotnik I.A.
Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics. 2020. Vol. 60. No. 2. P. 240-257.
Demin S. S., Shvydun S.
In bk.: Group Decision and Negotiation: A Multidisciplinary Perspective: 20th International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation, GDN 2020, Toronto, ON, Canada, June 7–11, 2020, Proceedings. Vol. 388. Springer, 2020. P. 32-44.
Alexander A. Lazarev, Frank Werner, Nikolay Pravdivets.
Preprint 09/ 19, FMA, OvGU Magdeburg, 2019,. Preprint 09/ 19, FMA, OvGU Magdeburg, 2019,. Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, 2019
Topic: Generalized Trust, Preferences for Redistribution and Institutions
co-authors Ekaterina Borisova, Denis Ivanov
We study how institutional quality moderates the relationship between generalized trust and preferences for redistribution. It has been well established in the literature that generalized trust is conducive to greater support for redistribution because it reduces expectations of cheating and free-riding among others. Following Algan et al. (2016), we hypothesize that the effect of trust on preferences for redistribution is conditional on the quality of the institutional environment. Trusting individuals, that is, are hypothesized to be more supportive of redistribution in favor of target groups with a high propensity of free-riding (like the poor and the unemployed) if the institutional environment is more likely to detect and penalize free-riders. We test this hypothesis with data from the Life in Transition II survey that contains 38,000 thousand respondents from 35 transition and developed countries. We find that the effect of individual trust on supporting redistribution in favor of the poor and the unemployed depends indeed on the quality of the formal institutions in the environment, like the country-level control of corruption, the rule of law and government effectiveness. Trust and formal institutions are therefore complements with respect to their effect on preferences for redistribution. This relationship is not observed for groups conventionally thought of as unambiguously deserving or delineated with free-riding proof eligibility criteria, i.e. for the old, the disabled, and families with children. Additionally we find that trust under good institutions is associated indicating all beneficiary groups as deserving support.
the joint seminar of Higher School of Economics on political economy, International Center for the Study of Institutions and Development (ICSID) and NES Center for the Study of Diversity and Social Interaction (NES CSDSI) was held on February 5.
Moderators: Alexei Zakharov (HSE), Konstantin Sonin (HSE, The University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy)