Not logged in.

Contribution Details

Type Journal Article
Scope Discipline-based scholarship
Title Gender preference gaps and voting for redistribution
Organization Unit
Authors
  • Eva Ranehill
  • Roberto A. Weber
Item Subtype Original Work
Refereed Yes
Status Published in final form
Language
  • English
Journal Title Experimental Economics
Publisher Springer
Geographical Reach international
ISSN 1386-4157
Volume 25
Number 3
Page Range 845 - 875
Date 2022
Abstract Text There is substantial evidence that women tend to support different policies and political candidates than men. Many studies also document gender differences in a variety of important preference dimensions, such as risk-taking, competition and pro-sociality. However, the degree to which differential voting by men and women is related to these gaps in more basic preferences requires an improved understanding. We conduct an experiment in which individuals in small laboratory “societies” repeatedly vote for redistribution policies and engage in production. We find that women vote for more egalitarian redistribution and that this difference persists with experience and in environments with varying degrees of risk. This gender voting gap is accounted for partly by both gender gaps in preferences and by expectations regarding economic circumstances. However, including both these controls in a regression analysis indicates that the latter is the primary driving force. We also observe policy differences between male- and female-controlled groups, though these are substantially smaller than the mean individual differences - a natural consequence of the aggregation of individual preferences into collective outcomes.
Related URLs
Digital Object Identifier 10.1007/s10683-021-09741-8
Other Identification Number merlin-id:23130
PDF File Download from ZORA
Export BibTeX
EP3 XML (ZORA)
Keywords Economics, econometrics and finance (miscellaneous), gender differences, risk, altruism, redistributive preferences, experiment
Additional Information Earlier published as ECON Working Paper No. 271