Promoting justice by treating people unequally: an experimental study

Which inequalities among individuals are considered unjust? This paper reports the results of an experiment designed to study distributive choices dealing with arbitrarily unequal initial endowments. In a three-person distribution problem where subjects either know or do not know their endowments, we find impartial behavior to be a stable pattern. Subjects either compensate for initial inequalities fully or not at all in both conditions, and they do so more often when they do not know their endowment than when they know it. Moreover, the type and the size of the good to be distributed also affect the frequency of impartial behavior.     

Bounds for Ratios of Posterior Expectations: Applications in the Collective Risk Model

This paper considers the collective risk model for the insurance claims process. We will adopt a Bayesian point of view, where uncertainty concerning the specification of the prior distribution is a common question. The robust Bayesian approach uses a class of prior distributions which model uncertainty about the prior, instead of a single distribution. Relatively little research has dealt with robustness with respect to ratios of posterior expectations as occurs with the Esscher and Variance premium principles. Appropriate techniques are developed in this paper to solve this problem using the k -contamination class in the collective risk model.     

Do employment subsidies work? Evidence from regionally targeted subsidies in Turkey

This paper studies the effects on registered employment and number of registered establishments of two employment subsidy schemes in Turkey. We implement a difference-in-differences methodology to construct appropriate counterfactuals for the covered provinces. Our findings suggest that both subsidy programs did lead to significant net increases in registered jobs in eligible provinces (5%–13% for the first program and 11%–15% for the second). However, the cost of the actual job creation was high because of substantial deadweight losses, particularly for the first program (47% and 78%). Because of better design features, the second subsidy program had lower, though still significant, deadweight losses (27%–46%). Although constrained by data availability, the evidence suggests that the dominant effect of subsidies was to increase social security registration of firms and workers rather than boosting total employment and economic activity. This supports the theory that in countries with weak enforcement institutions, high labor taxes on low-wage workers may lead to substantial incentives for firms and workers to operate informally.