Paternalism in the Welfare State

2022-08-02

2024-06-30

• meanBelief: The respondent’s incentivized belief about the average total gift card value the welfare recipient would trade for the food box, elicited using a multiple price list with eight dollar amounts ($0, $25, $45, $60, $70, $85, $105, $130)
• patFoodSw: The range out of the nine defined by the eight dollar amounts ($0, $25, $45, $60, $70, $85, $105, $130) in which the respondent switches from sending the welfare recipient the food box to letting them choose between the food box and gift cards worth that amount.
• surrSw: The range out of the nine defined by the eight dollar amounts ($0, $25, $45, $60, $70, $85, $105, $130) in which the respondent switches from sending the welfare recipient the food box to sending them gift cards worth that amount.
• We again elicit the first and the last of the above three outcomes after informing the respondent whether the welfare recipient prefers food or gift cards worth $70.
We had originally planned to use the dollar amounts ($0, $20, $35, $45, $55, $65, $80, $100) but edited the questionnaire to reflect the new price grid after piloting. We also originally planned to provide information about the welfare recipient’s preferences above or below $50 but edited the questionnaire to use $70 as the new benchmark after piloting.

We assign the midpoint of each interval as the value of the outcome for respondents who switch in that interval. For example, someone who lets respondents choose between food and gift cards at $45 and above but who forces food at $35 and below would have patFoodSw = $40.

• sdBelief: The respondent’s incentivized belief about the standard deviation of the total gift card value the welfare recipient would trade for the food box, elicited using a multiple price list with eight dollar amounts ($0, $25, $45, $60, $70, $85, $105, $130)
• sdBelief, elicited after informing the respondent whether the welfare recipient prefers food or gift cards worth $50.
• altruism: The dollar amount out of a list of six dollar amounts ($0, $10,…,$50) that the respondent would give to the welfare recipient if the amount remaining out of $50 goes to a random U.S. taxpayer.
• recFood: Whether the respondent recommends choosing food if they give the welfare recipient the choice between food and gift cards (rather than the food box).
• Miscellaneous questions regarding how respondents use the food and gift cards, how they spend the marginal dollar from each, the price of the food box, welfare recipients’ demographics, the acceptability of different choices, political views, and demographics.

We present respondents with a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, food stamps) recipient and one of two different food boxes (a healthy box and a representative box), each worth about $50. One in 20 respondents makes the choice about a real person. Respondents learn that the welfare recipient may or may not be real and do not learn whether they are. Respondents then make a series of choices regarding whether the welfare recipient receives the food box or a set of gift cards of their choice worth a given dollar amount.

In order to run these treatments, we first run a survey with SNAP recipients where we elicit their preferences for the food box compared to gift cards.

After running the initial survey, we recruit a new panel of 500 respondents. First, we altered the way we elicited respondents’ beliefs (meanBelief, sdBelief) to drag and drop tags into bins rather than using a grid. Second, we randomly provided information about SNAP recipients’ alcohol consumption to some respondents and not to others.

Not available

Random number generator on Qualtrics platform

Individual

No

Initial survey: 4,000 respondents (including 3,800 respondents who make choices about artificial welfare recipients with pre-specified demographics); 140-160 real welfare recipients for incentives.

Second round: 500 respondents; 150 real welfare recipients for incentives.

Initial survey: 4,000 respondents (including 3,800 respondents who make choices about artificial welfare recipients with pre-specified demographics); 140-160 real welfare recipients for incentives. Second round: 500 respondents; 150 real welfare recipients for incentives.

Approximately 300 respondents in the young white male bin
Approximately 300 respondents in the young black male bin
Approximately 600 respondents in the young white female (without children) bin
Approximately 600 respondents in the young black female (without children) bin
Approximately 600 respondents in the young white female (with children) bin
Approximately 600 respondents in the young black female (with children) bin
Approximately 300 respondents in the old white male bin
Approximately 300 respondents in the old black male bin
Approximately 300 respondents in the old white female (without children) bin
Approximately 300 respondents in the old black female (without children) bin

With our current sample size, resampling our pilot data indicates that we have the following power to detect a $5 effect of the following demographics on the listed outcomes: Outcome Power for parental status Power for race patFoodSw 91.1% 99.4% surrSw 99.8% 100% surrSw, elicited again after observing the welfare recipient chose $50 in gift cards over the food box 99.1% 100% surrSw, elicited again after observing the welfare recipient chose the food box over $50 in gift cards 100% 100% The power to detect a $5 effect of gender on the listed outcomes will fall between parental status and race, and thus is always larger than 90%.