Perceptions on Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution in Spain

Last registered on March 13, 2024

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Perceptions on Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution in Spain
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0012942
Initial registration date
February 13, 2024

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
February 16, 2024, 3:47 PM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
March 13, 2024, 1:01 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Minato Policy Creation Research Institute

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-02-13
End date
2024-03-30
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Evidence from recent studies shows that people have different perceptions on who are the winners and the losers of the redistribution policies and on the notion of what is fair. These different views crucially affect people’s preferences for redistribution policies.

We conduct an online survey in Spain to clarify how perceptions on intergenerational mobility affects preferences for redistribution. We follow the framework and the questionnaire of Alesina et al. (2018), with minor modifications, and mainly aim to contribute to the existing literature by adding a new country case. The randomised treatment is built on two animations indicating low intergenerational mobility.

In addition to causal inference design, we do also provide some stylised facts on the gap between reality and perceptions, i.e. misperceptions, on personal and household income positions in society and correlations between the misperceptions and policy preferences.

For the details of randomisation strategy and key questions for our study, please see the Supporting Documents and Materials, which is available upon request (by clicking the button).

References:
Alesina A., Stantcheva S., and Teso E. 2018. “Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution” AER, 108 (2), pp. 521-554.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Fukuda, Rui and Dan Sasaki. 2024. "Perceptions on Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution in Spain." AEA RCT Registry. March 13. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.12942-1.2
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We conduct three waves of online surveys, Wave A, the control group, and Waves B and C, the treatment groups.

Two animations on low intergenerational mobility will be shown to the respondents of Waves B and C. Respondents of Wave A do not receive the animated information.
Intervention Start Date
2024-02-19
Intervention End Date
2024-03-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1. Perceptions on personal and household income positions in the country and on intergenerational upward mobility.
2. Policy preferences.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
1. Perceptions
1-1. Perceptions on personal and household income positions in the country
We ask a question on their perceived relative positions of personal and household income in the national income distribution. We also ask questions on last year’s personal and household income, of which the categories are based on actual income decile distribution in the country (EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions, 2022). Combining those questions, we show stylised facts on Spanish respondents’ misperceptions on their own income positions in society.

1-2. Perceptions on upward mobility
To elicit respondents’ beliefs on intergenerational upward mobility, we introduce an image of stairs to the question, in the same manner as preceding research. Hypothesising 500 families that represent the country's population, we ask the perceived probability of upward mobility of the children coming from poorest families. Specifically, using an image of stairs, we ask respondents how many children coming from the poorest 100 families will belong to different income groups, once they grow up (respondents need to fill out empty fields to indicate their views). We then redo the same question of upward mobility conditional on children’s effort and talent.

2. Policy preferences
The main questions on policy preferences are as below.

2-1. Government budget allocation
We ask preferred budget allocation on ⅰ) Defense and National Security, ⅱ) Infrastructure, ⅲ) Education (early childhood, primary and secondary education), ⅳ) Education (tertiary education), ⅴ) Old age and disability pensions, ⅵ) Social Insurance and Public Assistance, and ⅶ) Health. The respondents have to divide the budget in to 7 categories and the total percentile of the budget must sum to 100.

2-2. Income taxes
To elicit income tax preferences, we ask respondents to move taxation sliders, which correspond to preferred income tax rates on each income group, in a way that they view fair. Income groups are the top 1%, the next 9%, the 40%, and the bottom 50%. Notice that respondents are constrained to current level of revenue in their country, and to build up this constraint, actual statistics, such as GNI and income tax revenue statistics, are utilised behind the question.

In addition to the question above, we ask policy preferences questions, such as support for the Estate Tax, equality of opportunity policies. For the details of the main questions, please see the Supporting Documents and Materials, which is available upon request (by clicking the button).

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We conduct an online survey to collect information on perceptions on intergenerational mobility and on relative income positions in the country, and preferences for redistribution amongst a representative sample of the Spanish population. We attempt to clarify correlations and causations between upward mobility perceptions and preferences for redistribution policies. The survey design builds on Alesina et al. (2018), which shows treatment group respondents two animations on low intergenerational mobility.

Based upon the aforesaid information-provision design, respondents are randomly split between one control group and two treatment groups, Waves A, B and C respectively. Respondents in treatment groups, Wave B and C, are shown two animations on low intergenerational mobility, those in the control group, Wave A, are shown no information. We also run a follow-up survey to the treated, Waves B and C, in order to check persistency of treatment effects. Respondents are recontacted approximately 7 days after they have completed the main survey.

For the details of randomisation strategy and key questions for our study, please see the Supporting Documents and Materials, which is available upon request (by clicking the button).

Planned date for data collection.
■Trial Start Date
Wave A (Control G): 2024-02-13
■Intervention Start Date
Wave B (Treatment G): 2024-02-19
Wave C (Treatment G): 2024-03-18
■Intervention End Date
Wave B (Treatment G): 2024-02-29
Wave C (Treatment G): 2024-03-28
*Follow-up survey will be conducted for Waves B and C, approximately 7 days after they have completed the main survey.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Respondents are randomly assigned to control and treatment groups by the Qualtrics software.
Randomization Unit
We randomize participants (individuals) in control and treatment groups.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
One country
Sample size: planned number of observations
2,000 respondents
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
500 respondents for control, 1,500 respondents for treatment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

Documents

Document Name
Survey Plan & Key Questions
Document Type
survey_instrument
Document Description
The quota information, survey schedule, and descriptions on key questions are summarised.
File
Survey Plan & Key Questions

MD5: 6c75a203f2e8df6d4ebffab6729a1c36

SHA1: 48dc7f0e9e4362d3beb9d36f4aecdd2f0fb33927

Uploaded At: March 13, 2024

Document Name
Questionnaire
Document Type
survey_instrument
Document Description
This is the questionnaire for the Wave A.
File
Questionnaire

MD5: 6674b13bd198e7f4e105212490f700fd

SHA1: 4df06d66b9dcabbb58b756c1d6d24d8c1018ed2f

Uploaded At: February 16, 2024

Document Name
Treatment animations
Document Type
survey_instrument
Document Description
These are the treatment animations shown to the respondents of Waves B and C.
File
Treatment animations

MD5: a677d2bef806f02e8161ad275ab061b0

SHA1: c6eb8def1a457562bbb166e34feda273377dce87

Uploaded At: February 16, 2024

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Ethical Review Board, Institute of Social Science, The University of Tokyo
IRB Approval Date
2024-01-26
IRB Approval Number
139

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials