|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
Assistance towards the poor in Western economies is often delivered in the form of in-kind transfers. This form is puzzling from the vantage point of standard microeconomic theory, according to which cash transfers are the most efficient means of raising recipients' welfare. To understand the motivations for such policies, we conduct a lab-in-the-field experiments in the US. General population respondents have the opportunity to place restrictions on a transfer we deliver to a welfare recipient who participates in the study. We examine the causes underlying the restrictions individuals impose. Using a structural model, we quantify the importance of various motives including respect for the recipient's autonomy. We characterize how these motivations differ depending on whether the welfare recipient is black or white, male or female, and whether the recipient has children. In counterfactual simulations, we then examine whether and how approval of paternalistic constraints on welfare payments would change if individuals had accurate beliefs about the recipients' use of the funds as well as about the demographic composition of the recipient pool. We also examine whether the pronounced differences between the US and German welfare states are traceable to voters' respect for the autonomy of welfare recipients and / or to variation in beliefs about recipients' choices and characteristics.
|
After
Assistance towards the poor in Western economies is often delivered in the form of in-kind transfers. This form is puzzling from the vantage point of standard microeconomic theory, according to which cash transfers are the most efficient means of raising recipients' welfare. To understand the motivations for such policies, we conduct a lab-in-the-field experiments in the US. General population respondents have the opportunity to place restrictions on a transfer we deliver to a welfare recipient who participates in the study. We examine the causes underlying the restrictions individuals impose. Using a structural model, we quantify the importance of various motives including respect for the recipient's autonomy. We characterize how these motivations differ depending on whether the welfare recipient is black or white, male or female, and whether the recipient has children. In counterfactual simulations, we then examine whether and how approval of paternalistic constraints on welfare payments would change if individuals had accurate beliefs about the recipients' use of the funds as well as about the demographic composition of the recipient pool.
|
|
Field
Trial Start Date
|
Before
July 11, 2022
|
After
August 02, 2022
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
July 06, 2022 01:20 AM
|
After
August 02, 2022 02:47 PM
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
July 11, 2022
|
After
August 02, 2022
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
We present respondents with a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) recipient and one of two different food boxes (a healthy box and a representative box), each worth about $50. One in 80 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
We present respondents with a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (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.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
4000 respondents; 40-60 welfare recipients for incentives.
|
After
3,000 respondents (including 2,850 respondents who make choices about artificial welfare recipients with pre-specified demographics); 40-60 real welfare recipients for incentives.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
4000 respondents; 40-60 welfare recipients for incentives.
|
After
3,000 respondents (including 2,850 respondents who make choices about artificial welfare recipients with pre-specified demographics); 40-60 real welfare recipients for incentives.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
Approximately 660 respondents in each race x gender x children (if female) bin.
|
After
Approximately 200 respondents in the young white male bin
Approximately 200 respondents in the young black male bin
Approximately 400 respondents in the young white female (without children) bin
Approximately 400 respondents in the young black female (without children) bin
Approximately 400 respondents in the young white female (with children) bin
Approximately 400 respondents in the young black female (with children) bin
Approximately 200 respondents in the old white male bin
Approximately 200 respondents in the old black male bin
Approximately 200 respondents in the old white female (without children) bin
Approximately 200 respondents in the old black female (without children) bin
|
|
Field
Power calculation: Minimum Detectable Effect Size for Main Outcomes
|
Before
With our current sample size, resampling our pilot data indicates we have the following power to detect a $5 difference in the listed outcomes between any two demographic groups (e.g. white single male vs. black single male) at a 5% significance level:
patFoodSw 84.7%
surrSw 98.4%
surrSw, elicited again after observing the welfare recipient chose $50 in gift cards over the food box 98.4%
surrSw, elicited again after observing the welfare recipient chose the food box over $50 in gift cards 100%
|
After
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%.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
• 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, $20, $35, $45, $55, $65, $80, $100)
• 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.
|
After
• 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, $20, $35, $45, $55, $65, $80, $100)
• 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.
|