Morten Støstad, Norwegian School of Economics (NHH) - Job Market Seminar

"Comparing Universes of Redistributive Arguments"

Abstract

We use natural language processing to classify all pro-redistributive speeches in the U.S. Congress and Norwegian Storting from 2015 to 2022, contrasting arguments based on fairness with those based on the negative societal consequences of inequality (inequality externalities). Fairness-based arguments are more emotional and divisive, whereas externality-based arguments appeal to logic and consensus. Externality arguments are two to five times more common in the Norwegian Storting. Experimentally elicited universes of arguments are similarly convincing to U.S. survey respondents, although a preference for fairness is linked to lower educational attainment across analyses. Our results establish the existence of two distinct ways to argue for redistribution, and provide a general framework for comparing the content and evaluations of arguments across domains.

Contact person: Claus Thustrup Kreiner