Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Mar 18:1–23. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s10888-022-09558-2

Collective negative shocks and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from the COVID-19 crisis in Germany

Bellani Luna 1,2,3, Fazio Andrea 4, Scervini Francesco 4,✉
PMCID: PMC10024028  PMID: 37360570

Abstract

Using new data from a three-wave panel survey administered in Germany between May 2020 and May 2021, this paper studies the impact of a negative shock affecting all strata of the population, such as the development of COVID-19, on preferences for redistribution. Exploiting the plausibly exogenous change in the severity of the infection rate at the county level, we show that, contrary to some theoretical expectations, the worse the crisis, the less our respondents expressed support for redistribution. We provide further evidence that this is not driven by a decrease in inequality aversion but might be driven by the individuals’ level of trust.

Keywords: Preference for redistribution, Inequality aversion, COVID-19

Appendix: The survey

To gain a better understanding of how people in Germany cope with the social and political effects of the COVID-19 crisis, a group of researchers at the “The Politics of Inequality" cluster of excellence at the University of Konstanz initiated a multifaceted survey program. One of the authors of this paper is a member of this group. The issues covered in this program are diverse. A total of 18 Cluster researchers from various disciplines are involved in this project, which brings together the Cluster’s research areas and disciplines. The program is coordinated by the Methods Hub, a central institution that provides Cluster researchers with method skills and practical support. The data are collected by the University of Konstanz survey-LAB.

The online surveys were implemented in three waves. A first wave was collected during April- June 2020, with over 8,000 participants. The second wave of 7,000 interviews was collected in October-November 2020 and features a panel setting. In May 2021, we conducted a third survey wave with more than 6,000 participants. The Kantar panel (a permanent group of respondents) was used for topics that required a particularly representative sample of the population, like the one in this paper. The Respondi panel was used for other research questions that rely on a large number of cases. Based on the Open Data strategy, the data collected as part of this survey program are free to use for scientific purposes after a short embargo. They are (will be) accessible via the data archive of GESIS—The Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences at https://data.gesis.org/sharing/#!Search/?partner=exzclu.

Comprehensive information on the survey program, descriptions of the topic-oriented modules and their results, and complete information on methods and the underlying data are available on https://www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/en/inequality/research/covid-19-and-inequality-surveys-program/. An English translation of the three questionnaires for the Kantar panel used in this paper is available at https://www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/en/inequality/research/covid-19-and-inequality-surveys-program/documentation/.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Pavia within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This project is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG - German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy-EXC-2035/1 – 390681379, as well as a financial contribution from the Italian Ministry of University and Research PRIN 2017K8ANN4 “New approaches to political economy: from methods to data” is gratefully acknowledged.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are (will be) accessible via the data archive of GESIS—The Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences at https://data.gesis.org/sharing/#!Search/?partner=exzclu.

Declarations

Ethics

The paper raises no ethical issues. The survey received an ethical waiver from the Ethics Committee (Institutional Review Board, IRB) of the University of Konstanz, RefNo: IRB20KN09-006.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Bellani Luna, Email: luna.bellani@uni.kn.

Fazio Andrea, Email: andrea.fazio@unipv.it.

Scervini Francesco, Email: francesco.scervini@unipv.it.

References

  1. Alesina A, Angeletos G-M. Fairness and redistribution. Am. Econ. Rev. 2005;95(4):960–980. doi: 10.1257/0002828054825655. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alesina, A., Giuliano, P.: Preferences for redistribution. In Handbook of Social Economics, volume 1, pages 93–131. Elsevier (2011)
  3. Alesina, A., Glaeser, E., Glaeser, E. L.: Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: a World of Difference. Oxford University Press (2004)
  4. Alesina, A., Glaeser, E., Sacerdote, B.: Why doesn’t the US Have a European-Style Welfare System? Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research (2001)
  5. Alesina, A., Miano, A., Stantcheva, S.: Immigration and Redistribution. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research (2018)
  6. Algan, Y., Cahuc, P., Sangnier, M.: Efficient and inefficient welfare states. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP8229 (2011)
  7. Algan Y, Cahuc P, Sangnier M. Trust and the welfare state: the twin peaks curve. Econ. J. 2016;126(593):861–883. doi: 10.1111/ecoj.12278. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Almås I, Cappelen AW, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B. Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance. Science. 2010;328(5982):1176–1178. doi: 10.1126/science.1187300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Almås I, Cappelen AW, Tungodden B. Cutthroat capitalism versus cuddly so- cialism: are Americans more meritocratic and efficiency-seeking than Scandinavians? J. Polit. Econ. 2020;128(5):1753–1788. doi: 10.1086/705551. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Asaria, M., Costa-Font, J., Cowell, F.: How Does Exposure to COVID-19 Influence Health and Income Inequality Aversion? (2021) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. Balasundharam, V., Dabla-Norris, E., et al.: Pandemics and Inequality: Perceptions and Preferences for Redistribution. Technical report, International Monetary Fund (2021)
  12. Benabou R, Tirole J. Belief in a just world and redistributive politics. Q. J. Econ. 2006;121(2):699–746. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.699. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Borghi, E., Braga, M., Scervini, F.: Fear of the dark: how terrorist events affect trust in the long run. BAFFI CAREFIN Centre research paper, (2020-149) (2020)
  14. Bourdeau-Brien M, Kryzanowski L. Natural disasters and risk aversion. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2020;177:818–835. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2020.07.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Brück, T., Ferguson, N., Justino, P., Stojetz, W.: Trust in the Time of Corona. IZA Discussion Paper (2020)
  16. Cappelen AW, Falch R, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B. Solidarity and fairness in times of crisis. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2021;186:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2021.03.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cappelen AW, Hole AD, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B. The pluralism of fairness ideals: an experimental approach. Am. Econ. Rev. 2007;97(3):818–827. doi: 10.1257/aer.97.3.818. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cassar A, Healy A, Von Kessler C. Trust, risk, and time preferences after a natural disaster: experimental evidence from Thailand. World Dev. 2017;94:90–105. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.042. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Corneo G, Grüner HP. Individual preferences for political redistribution. J. Public Econ. 2002;83(1):83–107. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00172-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Daniele G, Geys B. Interpersonal trust and welfare state support. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 2015;39:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.03.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Daniele, G., Martinangeli, A. F., Passarelli, F., Sas, W., Windsteiger, L.: Wind of Change? Experimental Survey Evidence on the COVID-19 Shock and Socio-Political Attitudes in Europe (2020)
  22. Esaiasson, P., Sohlberg, J., Ghersetti, M., Johansson, B.: How the coronavirus crisis affects citizen trust in institutions and in unknown others: evidence from ‘the Swedish experiment’. Eur J Polit Res (2020)
  23. Esarey J, Salmon T, Barrilleaux C. Social insurance and income redistribution in a laboratory experiment. Polit. Res. Q. 2012;65(3):685–698. doi: 10.1177/1065912911411096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fazio A, Reggiani T, Sabatini F. The political cost of sanctions: evidence from COVID-19. Health Policy. 2022;126(9):872–878. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.06.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fetzer, T., Hensel, L., Hermle, J., Roth, C.: Coronavirus perceptions and economic anxiety. Rev. Econ. Stat., pages 1–36 (2020)
  26. Fong C. Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution. J. Public Econ. 2001;82(2):225–246. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00141-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Giuliano P, Spilimbergo A. Growing up in a recession. Review of Economic Studies. 2014;81(2):787–817. doi: 10.1093/restud/rdt040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Goebel J, Krekel C, Tiefenbach T, Ziebarth NR. How natural disasters can affect environmental concerns, risk aversion, and even politics: evidence from Fukushima and three European countries. J. Popul. Econ. 2015;28(4):1137–1180. doi: 10.1007/s00148-015-0558-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gualtieri G, Nicolini M, Sabatini F. Repeated shocks and preferences for redis- tribution. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2019;167:53–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.09.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Guiso L, Sapienza P, Zingales L. Does culture affect economic outcomes? J. Econ. Perspect. 2006;20(2):23–48. doi: 10.1257/jep.20.2.23. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hanaoka C, Shigeoka H, Watanabe Y. Do risk preferences change? Evidence from the great East Japan earthquake. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 2018;10(2):298–330. doi: 10.1257/app.20170048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hensel L, Witte M, Caria AS, Fetzer T, Fiorin S, Goetz FM, Gomez M, Haushofer J, Ivchenko A, Kraft-Todd G, et al. Global behaviors, perceptions, and the emergence of social norms at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2022;193:473–496. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2021.11.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kuziemko I, Norton MI, Saez E, Stantcheva S. How elastic are preferences for redistribution? Evidence from randomized survey experiments. Am. Econ. Rev. 2015;105(4):1478–1508. doi: 10.1257/aer.20130360. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lazarus JV, Ratzan S, Palayew A, Billari FC, Binagwaho A, Kimball S, Larson HJ, Melegaro A, Rabin K, White TM, et al. COVID-SCORE: a global survey to assess public perceptions of government responses to COVID-19 (COVID-SCORE-10) PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0240011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Masiero, G., Santarossa, M.: Natural disasters and electoral outcomes. Eur. J. Polit. Econ., page 101983 (2020)
  36. Meltzer AH, Richard SF. A rational theory of the size of government. J. Polit. Econ. 1981;89(5):914–927. doi: 10.1086/261013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Piketty T. Social mobility and redistributive politics. The Quarterly Journal of Eco- nomics. 1995;110(3):551–584. doi: 10.2307/2946692. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Piketty, T.: Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press (2018)
  39. Rees-Jones, A., D’Attoma, J., Piolatto, A., Salvadori, L.: Covid-19 Changed Tastes for Safety-Net Programs. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research (2020)
  40. Rosenberg M. Misanthropy and political ideology. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1956;21(6):690–695. doi: 10.2307/2088419. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Roth C, Wohlfart J. Experienced inequality and preferences for redistribution. J. Public Econ. 2018;167:251–262. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.09.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sabatini F, Ventura M, Yamamura E, Zamparelli L. Fairness and the unselfish demand for redistribution by taxpayers and welfare recipients. South. Econ. J. 2020;86(3):971–988. doi: 10.1002/soej.12416. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Saka, O., Eichengreen, B., Aksoy, C.: The political scar of epidemics. Econ. J (2022)
  44. Scervini F. Empirics of the median voter: democracy, redistribution and the role of the middle class. J. Econ. Inequal. 2012;10(4):529–550. doi: 10.1007/s10888-011-9183-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Schuppert A, Polotzek K, Schmitt J, Busse R, Karschau J, Karagiannidis C. Different spreading dynamics throughout Germany during the second wave of the COVID- 19 pandemic: a time series study based on national surveillance data. Lancet Regional Health-Europe. 2021;6:100151. doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Stang A, Standl F, Kowall B, Brune B, Böttcher J, Brinkmann M, Dittmer U, Jöckel K-H. Excess mortality due to COVID-19 in Germany. J. Infect. 2020;81(5):797–801. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.09.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Thöni C, Tyran J-R, Wengström E. Microfoundations of social capital. J. Public Econ. 2012;96(7–8):635–643. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.04.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are (will be) accessible via the data archive of GESIS—The Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences at https://data.gesis.org/sharing/#!Search/?partner=exzclu.

Articles from Journal of Economic Inequality are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES