Wage inequality and preferences for redistribution

Last registered on May 31, 2021

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Wage inequality and preferences for redistribution
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007739
Initial registration date
May 27, 2021
Last updated
May 31, 2021, 6:28 PM EDT

Locations

Region
Region
Region
Region
Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
PI Affiliation
PI Affiliation
PI Affiliation

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2021-05-28
End date
2022-01-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Using new cross-country survey and experimental data, we investigate the nature of beliefs about wage inequality and the effect of these beliefs on people’s support for redistribution with over 9000 respondents across six high-income countries (Australia, France, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States). This study combines a flexible elicitation of beliefs about the distribution of full-time wages within each country and a randomized survey experiment where respondents are allocated into one of three groups, two of which receive different types of information about wage inequality.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Eckel, Catherine et al. 2021. "Wage inequality and preferences for redistribution." AEA RCT Registry. May 31. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7739-1.1
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
There are two treatment groups. One group receives information about the ratio of the average wage of a CEO of a publicly listed company relative to the average full-time worker and the other receives information about the P90/P10 ratio of full-time workers wages in their country. This data has been sourced from the OECD employment database and the Bloomberg Global CEO Pay Index.
Intervention Start Date
2021-06-01
Intervention End Date
2021-06-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
There are three main families of primary outcomes. The first is preferences for government led redistribution. The second is people’s beliefs about inequality and fairness in general. The third is real world actions people are willing to take to address wage inequality.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
There are two families of secondary outcomes. The first is people’s perception of the distribution of wages in their country. The second is people’s preferred distribution of wages in their country. These outcomes are measured to illustrate whether the treatment impacts people’s priors.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The impact of the information interventions outlined above will be evaluated via an online randomized survey experiment in 6 countries (Australia, France, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States) in mid 2021. In addition to the content of the treatment, respondents will also be randomly allocated to receive the treatment before or after they express their perception of and preferred level of wage inequality in their country (Sections B and C in the questionnaire). This will allow us to a) illustrate whether the treatment impacted people’s perceptions of and preferred levels of the wage distribution (when the treatment is provided prior to Sections B and C) and b) examine heterogenous treatment effects on the primary outcomes based on respondents prior perceptions of and preferences for the distribution of wages in their country (when the treatment is provided after Sections B and C). To conduct this analysis data will be pooled across countries and/or treatments. However we will also examine whether there are different treatment effects between countries.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Qualtrics Stratified Randomization (by age and gender)
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
N/A
Sample size: planned number of observations
1500 respondents in each of the 6 countries
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
500 in each treatment and the control group
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Power calculations have been conducted to estimate the sample size required based upon the average effect size in similar cross-country survey experiments on this topic (e.g. Alesina, Stantcheva and Teso 2018). The minimum detectable effect (MDE) is around 8 percentage points (with power 0.8 and alpha 0.05) for a specific outcome in each country. The MDE is substantially lower when the data is pooled across countries and/or treatments.
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee
IRB Approval Date
2020-11-20
IRB Approval Number
26953
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information