The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries

Affluence and Influence

Why policymaking in the United States privileges the rich over the poor

Structural adjustment: damages, reparations and pathways to non-recurrence

Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank implemented neoliberal structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) across most countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. SAPs imposed austerity, privatisation and economic deregulation and have been associated with severe negative impacts on human welfare, including (a) declining real wages and working-class consumption, (b) increased rates of poverty and basic-needs deprivation, (c) increased neonatal and maternal mortality and (d) reduced health system access. Structural adjustment also created conditions for increased financial outflows and drain from the global South through unequal exchange. This paper reviews evidence of these damages and proposes possible options for reparations and distributive justice. We argue that the IMF and the World Bank should be democratised and restructured—or otherwise replaced by alternative institutions—to prevent further harm.

If you rise, I fall: Equality is prevented by the misperception that it harms advantaged groups

Nine preregistered studies ( n = 4197) demonstrate that advantaged group members misperceive equality as necessarily harming their access to resources and inequality as necessarily benefitting them. Only when equality is increased within their ingroup, instead of between groups, do advantaged group members accurately perceive it as unharmful. Misperceptions persist when equality-enhancing policies offer broad benefits to society or when resources, and resource access, are unlimited. A longitudinal survey of the 2020 U.S. voters reveals that harm perceptions predict voting against actual equality-enhancing policies, more so than voters’ political and egalitarian beliefs. Finally two novel-groups experiments reveal that advantaged participants’ harm misperceptions predict voting for inequality-enhancing policies that financially hurt them and against equality-enhancing policies that financially benefit them. Misperceptions persist even after an intervention to improve decision-making. This misperception that equality is necessarily zero-sum may explain why inequality prevails even as it incurs societal costs that harm everyone. , Advantaged groups misperceive equality as harming their resource access, which predicts voting against equality policies.

The persistence of cognitive biases in financial decisions across economic groups

While economic inequality continues to rise within countries, efforts to address it have been largely ineffective, particularly those involving behavioral approaches. It is often implied but not tested that choice patterns among low-income individuals may be a factor impeding behavioral interventions aimed at improving upward economic mobility. To test this, we assessed rates of ten cognitive biases across nearly 5000 participants from 27 countries. Our analyses were primarily focused on 1458 individuals that were either low-income adults or individuals who grew up in disadvantaged households but had above-average financial well-being as adults, known as positive deviants. Using discrete and complex models, we find evidence of no differences within or between groups or countries. We therefore conclude that choices impeded by cognitive biases alone cannot explain why some individuals do not experience upward economic mobility. Policies must combine both behavioral and structural interventions to improve financial well-being across populations.

Is Inequality Inevitable?

Wealth naturally trickles up in free-market economies, model suggests

Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status–legitimacy hypothesis.

Work, Justice, and Collective Capital Institutions: Revisiting Rudolf Meidner and the Case for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wage‐Earner</span> Funds

ABSTRACT This article makes the case for a specific variety of what we call Collective Capital Institutions (CCIs), by returning to the idea of Wage‐Earner Funds (WEFs) – a 1970s Swedish policy proposal designed gradually to shift ownership and control over parts of the economy to democratically controlled institutions. We identify two attractive rationales in favour of such a scheme and argue that both can fruitfully be transposed to the current worldwide economic situation. The egalitarian rationale is that WEFs could help in the pursuit of equality by giving a wider set of people a stake in collectively owned companies and a right to their profits. The democratic rationale is that WEFs redistribute not only these profits, but also the power over economic decisions made within companies. We then contrast such schemes for collective capital ownership with the similar but much more privatised proposals set out in, for instance, John Rawls's idea of a ‘property‐owning democracy’. We argue that CCIs ultimately are more likely to contribute to the development of the ‘sense of justice’ within society that is needed for a stable just society. We conclude that CCIs deserve a great deal more exploration in academic and political discussions of egalitarian economic systems.

Psychological ownership interventions increase interest in claiming government benefits

Significance Most government benefits programs exhibit a sizable participation gap, with eligible individuals forgoing billions of dollars in government benefits each year. Many policymakers have focused on addressing this participation gap, as receiving government benefits has been shown to reduce poverty, childhood hunger, educational gaps, and physical and mental illness. The current work presents psychological ownership framing as a behavioral science intervention, and we show that it can help address this benefits participation gap. These interventions are subtle, simple to implement, and cheaper to execute relative to logistical interventions. Moreover, the data show that psychological ownership interventions can be more efficacious than other common psychological interventions such as social norms and urgency. , Each year, eligible individuals forgo billions of dollars in financial assistance in the form of government benefits. To address this participation gap, we identify psychological ownership of government benefits as a factor that significantly influences individuals’ interest in applying for government benefits. Psychological ownership refers to how much an individual feels that a target is their own. We propose that the more individuals feel that government benefits are their own, the less likely they are to perceive applying for them as an aversive ask for help, and thus, the more likely they are to pursue them. Three large-scale field experiments among low-income individuals demonstrate that higher psychological ownership framing of government benefits significantly increases participants’ pursuit of benefits and outperforms other common psychological interventions. An additional experiment shows that this effect occurs because greater psychological ownership reduces people’s general aversion to asking for assistance. Relative to control messages, these psychological ownership interventions increased interest in claiming government benefits by 20% to 128%. These results suggest that psychological ownership framing is an effective tool in the portfolio of potential behavioral science interventions and a simple way to stimulate interest in claiming benefits.

The myth of meritocracy: who really gets what they deserve?

The long read: Sorting people by ‘merit’ will do nothing to fix inequality

Roadmap - New Economies for Eradicating Poverty

Rights-based, post-growth policies that make poverty eradication a deliberate outcome of restructured economies — not a trickle-down side effect of destructive growth.

Wage Compression Drives Nordic Income Equality

Income inequality in the Nordic countries — Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden — is substantially lower than in the United States or the United Kingdom despite similar levels of per capita income. The Gini coefficient for disposable income in Nordic countries averages 0.27, compared to 0.39 in the US and 0.36 in the UK. In Income Equality in the Nordic Countries: Myths, Facts, and Lessons (NBER Working Paper 33444), Magne Mogstad, Kjell G. Salvanes, and Gaute Torsvik analyze the underlying source of these disparities. They employ detailed microeconomic data and statistical decomposition techniques and consider distributional statistics on income, wages, working hours, education, and skills across these countries.

Unconditional cash transfers reduce homelessness

Homelessness is an economic and social crisis. In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, we address a core cause of homelessness—lack of money—by providing a one-time unconditional cash transfer of CAD$7,500 to each of 50 individuals experiencing homelessness, with another 65 as controls in Vancouver, BC. Exploratory analyses showed that over 1 y, cash recipients spent fewer days homeless, increased savings and spending with no increase in temptation goods spending, and generated societal net savings of $777 per recipient via reduced time in shelters. Additional experiments revealed public mistrust toward the ability of homeless individuals to manage money and demonstrated interventions to increase public support for a cash transfer policy using counter-stereotypical or utilitarian messaging. Together, this research offers a new approach to address homelessness and provides insights into homelessness reduction policies.

IRS: Sorry, but It’s Just Easier and Cheaper to Audit the Poor | Hacker News

He claims throughout the article that the IRS focuses disproportionately on poor families over the wealthy, but the first f$&@ing sentence says that the IRS audits the working poor at the same rate as the wealthy. You can argue that that’s not good policy, but it’s literally the definition of proportionate. The sub-head and the first sentence literally say opposite things.

New Capitalism II: Compositional vs income inequality

Are all class-based societies unequal?

Meritocracy: the great delusion that ingrains inequality | Jo Littler

From Theresa May to Donald Trump, our leaders sell it as a utopian system of fairness – but ‘merit’ has been manipulated to privilege the wealthy

Identifying heterogeneity using recursive partitioning: evidence from SMS nudges encouraging voluntary retirement savings in Mexico

Abstract Individuals regularly struggle to save for retirement. Using a large-scale field experiment (N=97,149) in Mexico, we test the effectiveness of several behavioral interventions relative to existing policy and each other geared toward improving voluntary retirement savings contributions. We find that an intervention framing savings as a way to secure one’s family future significantly improves contribution rates. We leverage recursive partitioning techniques and identify that the overall positive treatment effect masks subpopulations where the treatment is even more effective and other groups where the treatment has a significant negative effect, decreasing contribution rates. Accounting for this variation is significant for theoretical and policy development as well as firm profitability. Our work also provides a methodological framework for how to better design, scale, and deploy behavioral interventions to maximize their effectiveness.