explaining the easterlin paradox easterlin’s proposed explanations: income comparison and relative...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Explaining the Easterlin paradox
• Easterlin’s proposed explanations:
Income comparison and relative utility
Adaptation
• Both imply thresholds in the individual utility function
Benchmarks: self-regarding/ other regarding
• This section presents the empirical evidence of relative income concerns
1
![Page 2: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Monkeys’ Relative Concerns
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/10/12/income-inequality-
in-action-monkey-style/
![Page 3: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
I. Comparisons
• U(C, C/C*) indirect utility U (Y, Y*)• Coefficient on reference income Y* in
the regression of individual satisfaction: negative sign => comparison effect.
• Who are the reference groups?Reference groups hypothesized by the
researchers themselves:o Define the reference group
o Calculate its average income
o Plug this into a happiness regression
o Look at the coefficient
Direct survey evidence (McBride 2001, Senik 2009, Clark and Senik 2010)
Lab experiments (Falk and Ichino, 2006, McBride, 2007)
![Page 4: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
1. Papers with hypothesized reference groups
• A) Colleagues, co-workers, workers with same productive characteristics:
Clark and Oswald (1996): BHPS
Senik (2004, 2008): Russia RLMS, Transition countries + ECHP
Bygren (2004): Swedish Survey Panel (LNU)
Clark, Kristensen and Westergård-Nielsen (2007): Danish component of the ECHP.
![Page 5: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Clark and Oswald (1996)
![Page 6: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Clark and Oswald (1996)
![Page 7: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Papers with hypothesized reference groups
• B) Average co-citizens with the same characteristics
Van de Stadt et al. (1985): education level, age and employment status
Blanchflower and Oswald, 2004, average income of the state (USA).
Ferrer-i-Carbonnell, 2005: people with same education level, age group and region (East versus West Germany), GSOEP
Caporale, Georgellis, Tsitsianis, Yin, 2009: age cohorts (age of respondent +- 5 years) / education level, age group, country? European Social Survey.
McBride, 2001: cohort of people living in the USA, who are in the same age ± 5 years as the respondent.
![Page 8: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Ferrer-i-Carbonnell (2005)
![Page 9: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Ferrer-i-Carbonnell (2005)
![Page 10: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Papers with hypothesized reference groups
• C) Close Neighbours
Luttmer, 2005: average income in locality (100 000 inhabitants), NSFH (National Survey of Families and Households) panel data
Helliwell and Huang, 2009, Census tract of Canadian GSS
Fafchamps and Shilpi, 2008, Nepalese Living Standard Measurement Survey: mean ward consumption
Kingdon and Knight, 2004: South Africa, average income in the district, in the immediate neighborhood, race
Akay and Martinson, 2008, Ethopia: age, size of land holdings, geographical area
![Page 11: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Luttmer (2005)
![Page 12: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Luttmer (2005)
![Page 13: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Luttmer (2005)
![Page 14: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
2. Some papers with direct information about reference groups
• McBride (2001): American household survey Standard of living of parents at same age
• Knight and Song (2006): Chinese national household survey, rural ChinaQuestions about comparisons to other
people in one’s village/county/other cities/China as a whole “Wider orbits of comparisons are associated
with unhappiness”
• Senik (2009): Life in Transition SurveyFormer colleagues, former school-mates,
parents, own standard of living, before 1989.
• Clark and Senik (2010): European Social Survey.Colleagues
![Page 15: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Subjective questions
• To what extend do you agree with the following statements:
I have done better in life than most of my high school mates.
I have done better in life than most of my colleagues I had around 1989.
I have done better in life than my parents. My household lives better nowadays than around
1989. All things considered, I am satisfied with my life now
(henceforth Life satisfaction). The gap between the rich and the poor today in this
country should be reduced .
• seven proposed modalities: “strongly disagree/disagree/neither disagree nor agree/agree/strongly agree/not applicable/don’t know”.
• Two other comparison questions were asked:
“Please imagine a ten-step ladder where on the bottom, the first step, stand the poorest people, and on the highest step, the tenth, stand the rich. On which step of the ten is your household today?”
“Now imagine the same ten-step ladder around 1989, on which step was your household at that time?”
![Page 16: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Identification strategy
• There is no reason a priori why some people should estimate that they have done better than their colleagues but worse than their former high school mates, or better then their parents but worse than in 1989.
• Looking at the effect of such opposite evolutions in different dimensions thus helps avoiding the risk of collinearity of comparison benchmarks due to omitted variables.
map the different modalities of each pair of variables, creating a series of interaction terms that constitute a total partition of the sample.
estimate Life Satisfaction on these interaction categories, controlling for the usual socio-demographic variables and for country dummies.
![Page 17: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Results
• Comparisons are relevant and exert a significant impact on subjective well-being.
• Comparisons are asymmetric: under-performing one’s benchmark is always more important than out-performing it.
• “intra-personal” comparisons are more important than inter-personal ones.
• Local comparisons (to parents, former colleagues or high school mates) are more powerful than general ranking in the social ladder and its evolution.
• Comparisons that affect subjective well-being trigger a “compensating” demand for redistribution,
• but self-ranking on a general affluence scale is the most important determinant of the demand for redistribution.
![Page 18: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Clark and Senik (2010)
• Wave 3 of the European Social Survey (ESS)
• 22 European countries
• direct information on the intensity and the direction of income comparisons.
![Page 19: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Comparisons are important for the poorer
19
![Page 20: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Clark and Senik (2010)
![Page 21: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Clark and Senik (2010)
![Page 22: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Clark and Senik (2010)
![Page 23: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
• Income comparisons are acknowledged as important by a vast majority of Europeans.
• They are associated with lower levels of self-declared happiness and a greater demand for income redistribution.
• Colleagues are the most frequently cited reference group,
• but is also the most innocuous one.
• Cultural differences:
the negative welfare effect of comparisons is more important in Continental countries and less so in the British Isles, which is also the region in which comparisons most frequently concern colleagues.
Southern Europeans seem to be more family-oriented: they compare more to family members and suffer more from this type of comparisons than inhabitants of other parts of Europe.
• Income comparisons are also associated with a greater demand for income redistribution.
It is comparisons to family members and “others”, much more than comparisons to colleagues, that prompt the demand for income redistribution.
Clark and Senik (2010)
![Page 24: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Two Different Effects of Reference Income on
Satisfaction
• Direct effect: Comparisons
• Indirect effect: Information
• Hirschman (1973): “tunnel effect”
UA = V(YA, EA(YB), YB).
dV / dYB = (dV / dEA . dEA / dYB) + V3
V3 is the direct effect of YB on V; negative.
• Test: sign of dV / dYB :
negative sign:
o comparison effect V3 is negative and dominates the information effect (dV / dEA . dEA / dYB)
positive sign:
o information effect dominant
![Page 25: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Indirect informational effect:
• My own welfare can increase if I observe the
progression of my peers;
• stronger effect in a context of uncertainty and
volatility.
importance of the economic environment
Stabilized economies versus transition
economies (Senik, 2004, 2008).
![Page 26: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Senik (2008) « Ambition and Jealousy. Income
Interactions in the Old Europe versus the New Europe and the United States”
Identification• 2 types of variability:
- Time variability (panel data) fixed effects,
- Distinction Western Europe versus Eastern
Europe: higher volatility in the East
- Distinction Europe/USA: higher perceived
mobility in the USA.
• Relate these differences to the perception of
reference income.
![Page 27: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
DATA
• Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey, panel,
1994-2000 (5 waves, 11130 individuals),
• TARKI Hungarian Household Panel, 1992-1997
(6 waves, 8237 individuals),
• NORBALT II: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 1999,
10539 individuals,
• Polish Household Survey: 3 separate panels :
1987-1990, 1994-1996 et 1997-2000 (about 2000
individuals per wave).
• European Community Household Panel, 1994-
2001 (919000 observations for 14 countries and 8
waves) + French household survey (90000
observations).
• General Social Survey (United-States): cross-
section, 1972-2002 (44000 observations)
• European Social Survey, 2002, 21 countries
(42319 observations).
![Page 28: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Estimation in two stages
• First stage estimation: country by country, year by year :
• log real individual income = . [education, experience,
profession, branch, region, sexe] + it
Predicted income --> Reference income
• In a second stage, I use the post-estimation predicted income as a proxy for
the individual’s reference group’s income. I include Reference Income in an
equation of individual well-being :
S it = 1 . Reference Income + 2 . it + 3 [household
size, marital status, age, year dummies, (health, etc.)] +
v it + i
• Exclusion restrictions , Bootstrap reference income’s sd (1000 replications)
![Page 29: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Rationale
• This constructed variable is the average pay-off
associated with the productive characteristics of
a given individual.
• In a context where the association between
skills and pay-off is changing rapidly, this is a
good indicator of what an individual can expect
for himself.
• But is can also be a comparison benchmark (in
stable economies).
![Page 30: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Results
• Reference Income is a comparison income in
stabilized European economies
• But it essentially exerts an information effect
in Post-Transition countries, where
information is more scarce.
• In Poland, the relative weight of the two
effects changes over the period (pre/post
Transition).
• In the United States, Reference Income has a
positive effect on satisfaction.
![Page 31: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
![Page 32: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
![Page 33: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Senik (2008)
![Page 34: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Recent papers on comparison versus information
• Clark, Kristensen and Westergård-Nielsen
(2007).
• data with a very clear definition of the
reference group
• matched employer-employee panel
• individual job satisfaction can be considered
as a function of the earnings of other workers
within the same firm
• estimate job satisfaction regressions
controlling for the wages of all colleagues in
each firm
• across a representative sample of industries
and occupational groups in the economy
• Panel data fixed effects
![Page 35: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Clark, Kristensen and Westergård-Nielsen (2007)
Results:
• Job satisfaction rises with co-workers’
wages.
• This Hirschman effect is stronger:
for men
for highly-educated young males,
in larger firms than in smaller firms
In the private sector.
• “These findings are consistent with the
signal effect dominating the jealousy
effect for the subgroups that are most
likely to be promote.”
![Page 36: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
![Page 37: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
SALSA paper
• See separate ppt file
37
![Page 38: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Card, Mas, Moretti, Saez (2010)
"Inequality at work: the effect of peer salaries on job
satisfaction"
• Controlled experiment on the work place.
38
![Page 39: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Card, Mas, Moretti, Saez
• http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/• Opening of the website in March 2008• Experiment in Fall 2008.
![Page 40: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/
![Page 41: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Experiment in 2 stages• 0) Define a stratified sample in 3
Californian universities (6411 employés)Faculty, staff, medical
• 1) Send an information message to a randomized sub-sample inside each university (treatment group).Control group = those who did not receive
the information• 2) 10 days later, survey the entire
sample:Did they look at the site?Job satisfaction, willingness to quit job?
• Matched sample with administrative data on wages
![Page 42: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
First stage message
![Page 43: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Second stage questionnaire
![Page 44: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Results
• Those who received the information
were twice more likely to consult the
website (50% versus 20%).
• 4/5 looked at the wages of their
collleagues in the same department.
• Asymmetric effect on satisfaction.
• Correlation between treatment and
actual job quits within 3 years.
![Page 45: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Impact of treatment on job satisfaction
![Page 46: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
3) Experimental evidence on income comparisons
Michael McBride « Money, Happiness, and Aspirations: An
Experimental Study » (2008)
• experimental study of how multiple factors—
past payments, social
• comparisons, and expectations—influence
reported satisfaction.
• expectations and social comparisons
significantly affect reported satisfaction,
• subjects care relatively more about social
comparisons once they have achieved a
satisfactory outcome.
![Page 47: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
California Social Science Experimental Laboratory
(CASSEL), UCLA
• The core of the experiment is a version of the matching pennies game.
• In each round, each subject is randomly matched with one of the five following computer partner-types:
• 20% heads – 80% tails
• 35% heads – 65% tails
• 50% heads – 50% tails
• 65% heads – 35% tails
• 80% heads – 20% tails.
• The computer then tells the subject the partner-type
• Each partner type is equally likely
![Page 48: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
• Next, the subject chooses heads or tails for each of five coins.
• Then, the computer randomly and independently selects heads or tails according to partner-type distribution.
• If the subject’s first coin and the computer’s first coin match (either both are heads or both are tails), then the subject wins the coin, and so on for the other coins. Thus, a subject can win anywhere from 0 to 5 coins in any given round.
• After the computer partner’s choices are made, the computer reports to the subject the coin choices made by the computer and the number of coins won by the subject.
![Page 49: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
In Treatment A, the subject is told only
her own outcomes for each round.
In Treatment B, the subject is told her
own outcomes and also the average coins
won by the other subjects in the
experiment.
In Treatment C, the subject is told her
own outcomes, and the average coins
won by others by partner type.
• Immediately after being told the outcome of
a round, the subject is asked “How satisfied
are you with the result of this round?” She
then reports her satisfaction on a scale of 1 to
7.
• Estimation of satisfaction over own payment,
expected payment and average own type
payment.
![Page 50: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
![Page 51: Explaining the Easterlin paradox Easterlin’s proposed explanations: Income comparison and relative utility Adaptation Both imply thresholds in the individual](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062621/551c1b49550346a34f8b58b9/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Are Relative Income Concerns a Luxury?
• Evidence of relative-income concerns in low-income countries (increasing availability of surveys):
Venezuela, Mexico, Peru, and 20 other Latin American countries
China, India, Nepal, Tajikistan
Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, South Africa, Tanzania
• Comparisons are mostly upward. Relative deprivation.
• Development of information and communication technologies
Global relative-income concerns
=> Income comparisons are not luxuries