Popular in Economics

Banks and Policy Organisations

Macroeconomic modelling of CBDC: a critical review

European Central Bank Ulrich Bindseil

Banks and Policy Organisations

Financing Private Credit

Federal Reserve Bank of New York Nina Boyarchenko

Economics

Failing Banks

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Emil Verner

Economic History

Golden Fetters

UC Berkeley Barry Eichengreen

Economic Inequalities

Visions of Inequality

City University of New York Branko Milanovic

Economics

School Finance Equalization Increases Intergenerational Mobility

Yale University Barbara Biasi

Economics

Olivier Blanchard on U.S. Pandemic-Era Inflation

Peterson Institute for International Economics Olivier Blanchard

Are distributional preferences for safety stable?

View more insights in Social Sciences - Economics - Behavioral economics

View more figures from University of Birmingham

View the page of Danae Arroyos-Calvera

Read the Study

Next in Behavioral economics

Strategic Conformity or Anticonformity to Avoid Punishment and Attract Reward

Urs Fischbacher | University of Konstanz

A Family of Norms: Related Beliefs about Female Labor Force Participation

Elif Incekara Hafalir | University of Technology Sydney

Policy makers aim to respect public preferences when making trade-offs between policies, yet most estimates of the value of safety neglect individuals’ preferences over how safety is distributed. Danae Arroyos-Calvera discusses overall preferences for efficiency, equity and self-interest before and after the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak.

Image courtesy of interviewee. February 22, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

The study aims to investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic altered people's preferences regarding government policies on safety, specifically life preservation and mortality risk reduction. The researchers highlight the principle of consumer sovereignty, which suggests that policymakers should consider public preferences to enhance welfare.

They discuss how governments perform cost-benefit analyses when implementing policies, assessing both tangible costs and harder-to-quantify benefits, primarily focusing on saving lives. Additionally, the study emphasizes various factors influencing preferences, such as self-interest, altruism, and fairness.

The researchers conducted a survey before the pandemic and again in April 2020, analyzing how participants weighed considerations like efficiency (saving lives), self-interest (personal benefit), and equity (fair distribution). Initial findings indicated that efficiency remained the most important factor for participants, even after the pandemic, with self-interest and equity also being significant. Remarkably, preferences did not change after experiencing the pandemic, suggesting that evidence of public preferences is crucial for guiding effective policies without needing continuous reassessment. This video video stability in preferences can help governments create more informed and equitable safety policies.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:90000

1
00:00:00.105 --> 00:00:01.605
The goal of this study is

2
00:00:01.625 --> 00:00:04.245
to see whether the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak,

3
00:00:04.535 --> 00:00:06.685
which was a significant shock to the system,

4
00:00:07.265 --> 00:00:09.805
change people's preferences regarding

5
00:00:09.865 --> 00:00:11.685
how governments should allocate safety

6
00:00:12.345 --> 00:00:14.845
and safety is understood as saving lives

7
00:00:14.945 --> 00:00:16.565
or reducing mortality risks.

8
00:00:17.665 --> 00:00:19.765
Um, so I can tell you a little bit more about

9
00:00:19.985 --> 00:00:22.245
how we use people's preferences for policy.

10
00:00:23.225 --> 00:00:25.605
So policy makers are tasked

11
00:00:25.605 --> 00:00:28.005
with maximizing people's wellbeing or welfare.

12
00:00:28.515 --> 00:00:32.325
This is their job. And then in welfare economics,

13
00:00:32.325 --> 00:00:35.725
there's this principle called consumer sovereignty, by which

14
00:00:36.345 --> 00:00:38.725
people or consumers are the best judges

15
00:00:39.025 --> 00:00:40.045
of what's best for them.

16
00:00:40.825 --> 00:00:44.605
So if governments want to maximize this welfare, they have

17
00:00:44.605 --> 00:00:46.405
to take into account what people want.

18
00:00:47.825 --> 00:00:51.885
And so, when deciding whether to implement some policies

19
00:00:51.885 --> 00:00:54.565
or prioritizing one policy over the other,

20
00:00:54.675 --> 00:00:56.805
governments do cost benefit analysis,

21
00:00:57.345 --> 00:00:59.805
and the costs are reasonably straightforward,

22
00:01:00.425 --> 00:01:01.765
but the benefits are a bit harder.

23
00:01:01.985 --> 00:01:03.605
So that's why we need people's input.

24
00:01:03.985 --> 00:01:05.245
So I'm gonna give you an example.

25
00:01:05.905 --> 00:01:08.955
For example, if you think about transport,

26
00:01:09.135 --> 00:01:10.715
you could think about fixing a road

27
00:01:11.175 --> 00:01:14.875
and then where you improve a road you get benefits,

28
00:01:14.875 --> 00:01:16.755
for example, in terms of time saved.

29
00:01:17.415 --> 00:01:19.515
So commuters spend less time on the road,

30
00:01:20.015 --> 00:01:21.835
but also the road is now safer,

31
00:01:22.135 --> 00:01:23.595
so fewer people die on the road.

32
00:01:24.695 --> 00:01:27.595
And then you get these costs of building the road.

33
00:01:27.815 --> 00:01:30.515
And then you compare it to this benefiting in terms of value

34
00:01:30.855 --> 00:01:31.995
of the life saved.

35
00:01:32.855 --> 00:01:37.355
And then if this is, if the benefits outweigh the costs,

36
00:01:37.935 --> 00:01:39.235
you will then provide this policy.

37
00:01:39.655 --> 00:01:42.915
So again, you wanna save the most amount of lives

38
00:01:43.255 --> 00:01:44.915
to increase people's wellbeing,

39
00:01:45.655 --> 00:01:47.995
but if you really want to follow people's preferences,

40
00:01:48.095 --> 00:01:50.835
you should not only care about maximizing the number

41
00:01:50.835 --> 00:01:53.355
of life saved, which is what we know as efficiency,

42
00:01:53.695 --> 00:01:54.835
but you should also care.

43
00:01:55.455 --> 00:01:56.675
Uh, you should also consider

44
00:01:56.675 --> 00:01:59.035
that people care about themselves, not

45
00:01:59.035 --> 00:02:00.155
because they're selfish, but just

46
00:02:00.155 --> 00:02:02.555
because we need to, you know, self preserve.

47
00:02:03.015 --> 00:02:06.355
You need to consider that people are also altruistic,

48
00:02:06.735 --> 00:02:08.715
so they're probably willing to give up some

49
00:02:08.715 --> 00:02:10.115
of their benefit to help others.

50
00:02:10.815 --> 00:02:12.435
Uh, you also need to take into account

51
00:02:12.435 --> 00:02:13.475
that people care about fairness.

52
00:02:14.015 --> 00:02:15.795
So they may not wanna give all their

53
00:02:15.795 --> 00:02:17.115
risk reduction to one group.

54
00:02:17.345 --> 00:02:19.195
They may wanna distribute it evenly.

55
00:02:20.055 --> 00:02:23.635
So just following on the road example, imagine

56
00:02:23.745 --> 00:02:25.035
that we build the road

57
00:02:25.095 --> 00:02:28.395
or we only improved road infrastructure in London

58
00:02:28.655 --> 00:02:29.715
in a very big city.

59
00:02:30.345 --> 00:02:32.355
That would be great. We would save a lot of lives,

60
00:02:32.695 --> 00:02:34.235
but then probably people in the rest

61
00:02:34.235 --> 00:02:36.555
of the country wouldn't feel really good about that

62
00:02:36.555 --> 00:02:38.115
because we do care about that fairness.

63
00:02:38.855 --> 00:02:41.595
So in this paper, what we looked at was

64
00:02:41.935 --> 00:02:43.755
how people traded off efficiency,

65
00:02:44.145 --> 00:02:46.915
self-interest, fairness, et cetera.

66
00:02:47.575 --> 00:02:49.275
And then we wanted

67
00:02:49.295 --> 00:02:52.315
to see whether Covid had changed those trade offs.

68
00:02:52.765 --> 00:02:54.635
Apart from all the events that were taking,

69
00:02:55.255 --> 00:02:56.755
place around us.

70
00:02:56.775 --> 00:02:58.915
We also had a lot of communication

71
00:02:59.015 --> 00:03:00.015
About risk.

72
00:03:00.705 --> 00:03:04.045
So for example, if we think about efficiency,

73
00:03:04.045 --> 00:03:05.365
which is saving the most lives,

74
00:03:05.865 --> 00:03:08.085
we would have messages from the government saying,

75
00:03:08.795 --> 00:03:11.685
save home, sorry, stay home, save lives.

76
00:03:12.425 --> 00:03:17.245
And we know that messages from authorities are more,

77
00:03:17.805 --> 00:03:19.325
relevant so people take them more seriously.

78
00:03:19.345 --> 00:03:20.845
So it could be that people, now were caring

79
00:03:20.925 --> 00:03:21.965
a lot about saving lives.

80
00:03:22.665 --> 00:03:26.325
Um, media reported number of deaths every day.

81
00:03:26.825 --> 00:03:29.845
And again, from psychological literature, we know

82
00:03:29.845 --> 00:03:31.685
that the most salient aspect

83
00:03:31.685 --> 00:03:33.525
of a decision becomes the more important one.

84
00:03:33.665 --> 00:03:37.365
So maybe people were focusing on that it could be the case

85
00:03:37.395 --> 00:03:39.205
that equity was affected.

86
00:03:39.425 --> 00:03:41.645
So people wanted more fair distributions

87
00:03:41.645 --> 00:03:44.965
because again, the inequalities were very salient.

88
00:03:44.985 --> 00:03:47.605
So people knew about uneven distributions

89
00:03:47.665 --> 00:03:49.205
of protective equipment

90
00:03:49.585 --> 00:03:53.005
or uneven access to ventilators, for example.

91
00:03:54.265 --> 00:03:58.565
And then in terms of self-interest, we didn't know.

92
00:03:58.785 --> 00:04:00.165
We didn't know what to hypothesize

93
00:04:00.165 --> 00:04:01.725
because we thought it could have gone both ways.

94
00:04:01.905 --> 00:04:05.425
So on one hand we thought people have fear

95
00:04:06.125 --> 00:04:08.305
and maybe they're a bit anxious about covid,

96
00:04:08.485 --> 00:04:12.745
and that increases their need of for self-preservation.

97
00:04:13.885 --> 00:04:17.385
Um, also people were probably overestimating the risk

98
00:04:17.405 --> 00:04:19.105
of catching or dying from covid.

99
00:04:19.245 --> 00:04:22.025
So again, that leads them to take extra care of themselves.

100
00:04:22.645 --> 00:04:25.745
But it's also being found that when people are under threat,

101
00:04:26.505 --> 00:04:29.785
survival threat, some people tend to become more cooperative

102
00:04:30.165 --> 00:04:32.585
and more pro-social because we know that we have

103
00:04:32.585 --> 00:04:34.865
to get together to survive some of these threats.

104
00:04:35.565 --> 00:04:39.385
Um, and then finally, again, back to this public messaging.

105
00:04:39.845 --> 00:04:43.545
Um, the messages that we got from the government about,

106
00:04:44.135 --> 00:04:46.065
stay home and saving lives was about

107
00:04:46.405 --> 00:04:47.545
saving everyone's lives.

108
00:04:47.605 --> 00:04:49.345
It was not about protect yourself,

109
00:04:50.085 --> 00:04:51.745
but rather protecting everybody.

110
00:04:52.685 --> 00:04:55.825
Um, so these were the three key hypothesis

111
00:04:55.825 --> 00:04:57.865
that we had prior to the pandemic.

112
00:04:57.965 --> 00:05:01.785
We had asked people how they would trade off these concerns.

113
00:05:02.205 --> 00:05:04.425
So we send people a survey

114
00:05:04.925 --> 00:05:08.065
and we asked them to imagine that they lived in these city

115
00:05:08.355 --> 00:05:11.225
where the water reserves had been contaminated.

116
00:05:11.835 --> 00:05:13.545
There were two areas of the cities.

117
00:05:13.765 --> 00:05:17.465
And because of limited funds, it was impossible

118
00:05:17.465 --> 00:05:19.585
to implement all the policies that would be needed

119
00:05:19.605 --> 00:05:21.465
to completely get rid of them.

120
00:05:21.605 --> 00:05:24.265
So again, this is a similar scenario that we could find.

121
00:05:25.145 --> 00:05:26.625
Resources are limited, we need

122
00:05:26.625 --> 00:05:28.305
to do something to save people's lives.

123
00:05:29.005 --> 00:05:33.025
And then by having different scenarios that vary in

124
00:05:33.045 --> 00:05:36.025
how many lives they saved, in both areas of the city,

125
00:05:36.605 --> 00:05:38.385
we study the traders that people make

126
00:05:38.455 --> 00:05:39.705
between those concerns.

127
00:05:39.705 --> 00:05:43.105
So again, how many lives overall, overall are they willing

128
00:05:43.105 --> 00:05:45.785
to sacrifice the kid something more equitable

129
00:05:46.205 --> 00:05:47.465
or to help themselves?

130
00:05:47.885 --> 00:05:49.305
So we did this before Covid,

131
00:05:49.925 --> 00:05:54.505
and then in April, 2020, we had some people return.

132
00:05:55.085 --> 00:05:56.705
So around 250

133
00:05:56.705 --> 00:06:00.605
People of those that we had surveyed two years prior

134
00:06:00.625 --> 00:06:03.285
to the pandemic start, they came back

135
00:06:03.305 --> 00:06:04.765
and they answered the same questions.

136
00:06:05.185 --> 00:06:07.565
And so we were able to see whether the preferences

137
00:06:07.595 --> 00:06:09.445
that they had declared at the start

138
00:06:10.225 --> 00:06:13.205
and we're still holding, well, unsurprisingly, we found

139
00:06:13.205 --> 00:06:15.285
that people care most about efficiency.

140
00:06:15.345 --> 00:06:16.565
So we already knew this,

141
00:06:16.915 --> 00:06:20.325
this is people do care about maximizing the overall benefit.

142
00:06:21.065 --> 00:06:24.605
Um, but then we found, we found that, helping themselves

143
00:06:24.705 --> 00:06:26.685
so have themselves be eligible

144
00:06:26.985 --> 00:06:29.845
to this risk reduction was also very important,

145
00:06:30.345 --> 00:06:32.845
and equity was important as well.

146
00:06:33.225 --> 00:06:36.325
So the effect of efficiency was about five times

147
00:06:37.315 --> 00:06:39.925
more important than that, of helping yourself

148
00:06:39.985 --> 00:06:42.205
or helping everyone equally.

149
00:06:42.785 --> 00:06:44.485
But all of them were important

150
00:06:44.545 --> 00:06:45.925
and decisive in people's choices.

151
00:06:46.585 --> 00:06:48.005
In terms of covid, we found

152
00:06:48.005 --> 00:06:49.605
that these preferences have not changed.

153
00:06:50.105 --> 00:06:55.045
So it is remarkable that we get the same people two years

154
00:06:55.055 --> 00:06:56.965
after and after a very big shock.

155
00:06:57.385 --> 00:06:59.805
And they still express pretty much the same

156
00:06:59.805 --> 00:07:01.565
preferences in terms of safety.

157
00:07:02.265 --> 00:07:05.525
So it's always good to have evidence of people's preferences

158
00:07:05.525 --> 00:07:06.965
because they're very important, again,

159
00:07:06.965 --> 00:07:08.285
to be incorporated into policy.

160
00:07:08.705 --> 00:07:12.205
So we knew that people care about others, et cetera, from,

161
00:07:12.625 --> 00:07:14.765
you know, experimental economics studies.

162
00:07:15.145 --> 00:07:17.405
But it's very good to get this evidence in the relevant

163
00:07:17.405 --> 00:07:19.365
context, context, which is safety.

164
00:07:20.065 --> 00:07:22.005
And then it's also great to know

165
00:07:22.075 --> 00:07:24.365
that these preferences don't change, particularly

166
00:07:24.855 --> 00:07:26.845
after, you know, thinking about all these reasons

167
00:07:26.945 --> 00:07:28.845
of why these preferences could have changed,

168
00:07:28.995 --> 00:07:31.405
because it would be really costly for the government

169
00:07:31.785 --> 00:07:33.605
to be asking these questions over and over.

170
00:07:34.185 --> 00:07:37.005
So the good news is that we can get a representative sample

171
00:07:37.025 --> 00:07:39.285
of the population, get these preferences,

172
00:07:39.385 --> 00:07:41.245
and then use them to inform policy.

COVID-19 Impact on Safety Preferences and Policies

00:00:00 - The goal of this study is to see whether the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, which was a significant shock to the system, change people's preferences regarding how governments should allocate safety and safety is understood as saving lives or reducing mortality risks. so I can tell you a little bit more about how we use people's preferences for policy. So policy makers are tasked with maximizing people's wellbeing or welfare. This is their job. And then in welfare economics,
00:00:36 - people or consumers are the best judges of what's best for them. So if governments want to maximize this welfare, they have to take into account what people want. And so, when deciding whether to implement some policies or prioritizing one policy over the other, governments do cost benefit analysis, and the costs are reasonably straightforward, but the benefits are a bit harder. So that's why we need people's input.
00:01:05 - For example, if you think about transport, you could think about fixing a road and then where you improve a road you get benefits, for example, in terms of time saved. So commuters spend less time on the road, but also the road is now safer, so fewer people die on the road. And then you get these costs of building the road. And then you compare it to this benefiting in terms of value of the life saved. And then if this is, if the benefits outweigh the costs,
00:01:39 - So again, you wanna save the most amount of lives to increase people's wellbeing, but if you really want to follow people's preferences, you should not only care about maximizing the number of life saved, which is what we know as efficiency, but you should also care. you should also consider that people care about themselves, not because they're selfish, but just because we need to, you know, self preserve. You need to consider that people are also altruistic, so they're probably willing to give up some
00:02:10 - you also need to take into account that people care about fairness. So they may not wanna give all their risk reduction to one group. They may wanna distribute it evenly. So just following on the road example, imagine that we build the road or we only improved road infrastructure in London in a very big city. That would be great. We would save a lot of lives, but then probably people in the rest of the country wouldn't feel really good about that because we do care about that fairness.
00:02:41 - how people traded off efficiency, self-interest, fairness, et cetera. And then we wanted to see whether Covid had changed those trade offs. Apart from all the events that were taking, place around us. We also had a lot of communication About risk. So for example, if we think about efficiency, which is saving the most lives, we would have messages from the government saying, save home, sorry, stay home, save lives.

Public Preferences in Pandemic Policy Decisions

00:03:17 - relevant so people take them more seriously. So it could be that people, now were caring a lot about saving lives. media reported number of deaths every day. And again, from psychological literature, we know that the most salient aspect of a decision becomes the more important one. So maybe people were focusing on that it could be the case that equity was affected. So people wanted more fair distributions because again, the inequalities were very salient.
00:03:47 - of protective equipment or uneven access to ventilators, for example. And then in terms of self-interest, we didn't know. We didn't know what to hypothesize because we thought it could have gone both ways. So on one hand we thought people have fear and maybe they're a bit anxious about covid, and that increases their need of for self-preservation. also people were probably overestimating the risk
00:04:19 - So again, that leads them to take extra care of themselves. But it's also being found that when people are under threat, survival threat, some people tend to become more cooperative and more pro-social because we know that we have to get together to survive some of these threats. and then finally, again, back to this public messaging. the messages that we got from the government about, stay home and saving lives was about saving everyone's lives.
00:04:50 - but rather protecting everybody. so these were the three key hypothesis that we had prior to the pandemic. We had asked people how they would trade off these concerns. So we send people a survey and we asked them to imagine that they lived in these city where the water reserves had been contaminated. There were two areas of the cities. And because of limited funds, it was impossible to implement all the policies that would be needed
00:05:21 - So again, this is a similar scenario that we could find. Resources are limited, we need to do something to save people's lives. And then by having different scenarios that vary in how many lives they saved, in both areas of the city, we study the traders that people make between those concerns. So again, how many lives overall, overall are they willing to sacrifice the kid something more equitable or to help themselves? So we did this before Covid,
00:05:55 - So around 250 People of those that we had surveyed two years prior to the pandemic start, they came back and they answered the same questions. And so we were able to see whether the preferences that they had declared at the start and we're still holding, well, unsurprisingly, we found that people care most about efficiency. So we already knew this, this is people do care about maximizing the overall benefit.

Unchanged Safety Preferences Post-COVID

00:06:24 - so have themselves be eligible to this risk reduction was also very important, and equity was important as well. So the effect of efficiency was about five times more important than that, of helping yourself or helping everyone equally. But all of them were important and decisive in people's choices. In terms of covid, we found that these preferences have not changed. So it is remarkable that we get the same people two years
00:06:57 - And they still express pretty much the same preferences in terms of safety. So it's always good to have evidence of people's preferences because they're very important, again, to be incorporated into policy. So we knew that people care about others, et cetera, from, you know, experimental economics studies. But it's very good to get this evidence in the relevant context, context, which is safety. And then it's also great to know that these preferences don't change, particularly after, you know, thinking about all these reasons
00:07:39 - because it would be really costly for the government to be asking these questions over and over. So the good news is that we can get a representative sample of the population, get these preferences, and then use them to inform policy.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Faculti

Popular in Economics

Macroeconomic modelling of CBDC: a critical review

Financing Private Credit

Failing Banks

Golden Fetters

Visions of Inequality

School Finance Equalization Increases Intergenerational Mobility

Olivier Blanchard on U.S. Pandemic-Era Inflation

Are distributional preferences for safety stable?

Next in Behavioral economics

Guide

Platform and Category Pages

Contact Us

FAQs

What is Faculti?

How do you select interviews?

Interview Process

Page Structure

Popular in Economics

Guide

Platform and Category Pages

Contact Us

FAQs

What is Faculti?

How do you select interviews?

Interview Process

Accessibility Options

Contrast Adjustment

Text Size Adjustment

Text Spacing Adjustment

Line Height Adjustment

Cursor Size Adjustment

Page Structure Options

Page Structure