|
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.
|
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. 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
Last Published
|
Before
June 30, 2023 12:28 AM
|
After
July 23, 2023 01:25 AM
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
• 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, $20, $35, $45, $55, $65, $80, $100)
• patFoodSw: The range out of the nine defined by the eight dollar amounts ($0, $20, $35, $45, $55, $65, $80, $100) 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, $20, $35, $45, $55, $65, $80, $100) 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 $50.
|
After
• 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.
|
|
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 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
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.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
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.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
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.
|
After
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.
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
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
|
After
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
|
|
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, $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.
|