Another Avenue for Anatomy of Income Comparisons: Evidence from Hypothetical Choice Experiments

Yamada, Katsunori; Satō, Masayuki

doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55402-8_14

Cited by 13 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the experimental data on income comparison carried out by Yamada and Sato (), we find that the difference specification fits the data better than the ratio specification does. Therefore, relative affluence can be a cause of persistent stagnation and our model can be a good platform to analyse persistent stagnation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Note that there is a gap between the theoretical structure in the previous sections and the experimental setting given below. In the choice experiment of Yamada and Sato (), relative affluence is associated with income, whereas in our model, it is associated with asset holdings. That said, income is a predictor of asset holdings under the permanent income hypothesis.…”

Section: Experimental Evidence Of the Two Specifications Of Statusmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…We use the data set created by the hypothetical discrete choice experiment of Yamada and Sato (), which includes 48 172 observations from 10 203 respondents. They conducted an original internet‐based survey in February 2010 with Japanese subjects and investigated the intensity and sign of income comparisons against the social average .…”

Section: Experimental Evidence Of the Two Specifications Of Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For facilitating the experimental data of Yamada and Sato () to conduct a horserace of the ratio and difference specifications, let us reformulate the model to the following random utility model:

σ ((),, y_{i}, {\overset{y}{true}}_{i}) = β X_{i} + C + ɛ_{i},

where i represents each income scenario; X i is

Case normalD : X_{i} = y_{i} - {\overset{false¯}{y}}_{i},

Case normalR : X_{i} = \frac{y_{i}}{{\overset{y}{true}}_{i}};

β is the marginal utility from the status; C is the constant term; and ɛ is the error term that follows an independent and identical distribution of extreme value type 1. The probability p ij that respondents prefer income situation i to income situation j is given by

p_{ij} = Prob ((), σ ((),, y_{i}, {\overset{y}{true}}_{i}) > σ ((),, y_{j}, {\overset{y}{true}}_{j})), for all i \neq j .

…”

Section: Experimental Evidence Of the Two Specifications Of Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By setting up an experiment such that parameters were fully randomised and choice situations were orthogonal, they exploited the full potential of the discrete choice experiment framework to find if the subjects had altruism or jealousy. See section III. of Yamada and Sato () for details of the experimental setting. Experimental details are provided in the supplemental material of this study.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Difference or Ratio: Implications of Status Preference on Stagnation

Ono

Yamada

2018

Australian Economic Papers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider a dynamic macroeconomic model where households derive utility from wealth comparisons. Measure of relative affluence can be the ratio to, or the difference from, the social average. These two specifications lead to quite different equilibrium consequences: under the ratio specification full employment is always realised, whereas under the difference specification persistent shortage of aggregate demand can result. Using data of an experiment on status concern, we empirically find that the difference specification of relative affluence fits the data better than the ratio specification. Our work may help in understanding mechanisms behind recent stagnation in developed economies.JEL Classification: C91, E12.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Experimental Evidence Of the Two Specifications Of Statusmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Experimental Evidence Of the Two Specifications Of Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

σ ((),, y_{i}, {\overset{y}{true}}_{i}) = β X_{i} + C + ɛ_{i},

where i represents each income scenario; X i is

Case normalD : X_{i} = y_{i} - {\overset{false¯}{y}}_{i},

Case normalR : X_{i} = \frac{y_{i}}{{\overset{y}{true}}_{i}};

p_{ij} = Prob ((), σ ((),, y_{i}, {\overset{y}{true}}_{i}) > σ ((),, y_{j}, {\overset{y}{true}}_{j})), for all i \neq j .

…”

Section: Experimental Evidence Of the Two Specifications Of Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Difference or Ratio: Implications of Status Preference on Stagnation

Ono

Yamada

2018

Australian Economic Papers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Social preferences for distributive outcomes of climate policy

Svenningsen

2019

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

show abstract

Happiness and inequality in European countries: is it a matter of peer group comparisons?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses peer comparisons to analyze the impact of different types of inequalities (i.e., within-group, between-group and overall inequality) and reference income on subjective happiness. This study contributes to an emergent strand of research in which both relative levels of economic resources and the income distribution are regarded as determinants of individual happiness. The empirical findings show that overall and within-group inequality negatively affect individual happiness, inequality between reference groups does not affect happiness, and a higher average income of the reference group increases individual happiness. We examine whether people's aversion to inequality is conditional on their income position within reference group and institutional differences across European countries. These tests indicate that an increase in inequality or a decrease in average income decreases the happiness of both the rich and the poor. Regarding the differences across countries, people who live in more mobile societies with better welfare systems (e.g. Social-Democratic countries) are less adversely affected by inequality than people living in countries with low social mobility and ineffective systems of social protection (e.g. the Mediterranean countries). The analysis is based on data from the European Quality of Life Survey.

show abstract

Another Avenue for Anatomy of Income Comparisons: Evidence from Hypothetical Choice Experiments

Cited by 13 publications

References 81 publications

Difference or Ratio: Implications of Status Preference on Stagnation

Difference or Ratio: Implications of Status Preference on Stagnation

Social preferences for distributive outcomes of climate policy

Happiness and inequality in European countries: is it a matter of peer group comparisons?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About