Adrien Fabre
@adrien-fabre.bsky.social
CNRS researcher at CIRED.
Founder of Global Redistribution Advocates.
Youtuber: http://bit.ly/chaine_humaine
Ex ENS Ulm, PSE, ETHZ.
Economics, sustainability, politics.
Founder of Global Redistribution Advocates.
Youtuber: http://bit.ly/chaine_humaine
Ex ENS Ulm, PSE, ETHZ.
Economics, sustainability, politics.
Here is the redistribution obtained from the median preferred parameters: 5% of (nominal) world income redistributed from the top 18% to the bottom 49%, financing a minimum income of $287/month (in PPP).
Such redistribution would be a game-changer for the global poor.
/end
Paper: bit.ly/Fabre2025
Such redistribution would be a game-changer for the global poor.
/end
Paper: bit.ly/Fabre2025
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Here is the redistribution obtained from the median preferred parameters: 5% of (nominal) world income redistributed from the top 18% to the bottom 49%, financing a minimum income of $287/month (in PPP).
Such redistribution would be a game-changer for the global poor.
/end
Paper: bit.ly/Fabre2025
Such redistribution would be a game-changer for the global poor.
/end
Paper: bit.ly/Fabre2025
Finally, people can choose interactively their preferred global income redistribution.
You can do it too here: www.centre-cired.fr/en/custom-gl...
Below is a video explaining how the task works.
Interestingly, 48% choose a custom redistribution that makes them lose while only 9% choose to win.
You can do it too here: www.centre-cired.fr/en/custom-gl...
Below is a video explaining how the task works.
Interestingly, 48% choose a custom redistribution that makes them lose while only 9% choose to win.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Finally, people can choose interactively their preferred global income redistribution.
You can do it too here: www.centre-cired.fr/en/custom-gl...
Below is a video explaining how the task works.
Interestingly, 48% choose a custom redistribution that makes them lose while only 9% choose to win.
You can do it too here: www.centre-cired.fr/en/custom-gl...
Below is a video explaining how the task works.
Interestingly, 48% choose a custom redistribution that makes them lose while only 9% choose to win.
🧐Now, a word on support for more radical proposals.
Most people would accept an income tax on the global top 1% (resp. 3%): above $120k (resp. $80k) per year. This tax would collect 2% (resp. 5%) of world income and alleviate poverty below $250 (resp. $400) per month (in PPP).
Most people would accept an income tax on the global top 1% (resp. 3%): above $120k (resp. $80k) per year. This tax would collect 2% (resp. 5%) of world income and alleviate poverty below $250 (resp. $400) per month (in PPP).
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
🧐Now, a word on support for more radical proposals.
Most people would accept an income tax on the global top 1% (resp. 3%): above $120k (resp. $80k) per year. This tax would collect 2% (resp. 5%) of world income and alleviate poverty below $250 (resp. $400) per month (in PPP).
Most people would accept an income tax on the global top 1% (resp. 3%): above $120k (resp. $80k) per year. This tax would collect 2% (resp. 5%) of world income and alleviate poverty below $250 (resp. $400) per month (in PPP).
Belief that global redistribution is likely increases by 7 pp among informed respondents (33%->40%).
Under warm glow, support should *decrease* among convinced respondents.
I find the contrary: being convinced causally *increases* the number of global policies supported by 18 pp.
Under warm glow, support should *decrease* among convinced respondents.
I find the contrary: being convinced causally *increases* the number of global policies supported by 18 pp.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Belief that global redistribution is likely increases by 7 pp among informed respondents (33%->40%).
Under warm glow, support should *decrease* among convinced respondents.
I find the contrary: being convinced causally *increases* the number of global policies supported by 18 pp.
Under warm glow, support should *decrease* among convinced respondents.
I find the contrary: being convinced causally *increases* the number of global policies supported by 18 pp.
Belief that global redistribution is likely increases by 7 pp among informed respondents (33%->40%).
Under warm glow, support should *decrease* among convinced respondents.
I find the contrary: being convinced causally *increases* the number of global policies supported by 18 pp.
Under warm glow, support should *decrease* among convinced respondents.
I find the contrary: being convinced causally *increases* the number of global policies supported by 18 pp.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Belief that global redistribution is likely increases by 7 pp among informed respondents (33%->40%).
Under warm glow, support should *decrease* among convinced respondents.
I find the contrary: being convinced causally *increases* the number of global policies supported by 18 pp.
Under warm glow, support should *decrease* among convinced respondents.
I find the contrary: being convinced causally *increases* the number of global policies supported by 18 pp.
In case of warm glow, people express support to enjoy moral comfort as long as global policies appear unlikely and support harmless.
To test that, I inform a random half of respondents of ongoing international negotiations/initiatives.
The treatment increases support by 1 pp.
To test that, I inform a random half of respondents of ongoing international negotiations/initiatives.
The treatment increases support by 1 pp.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
In case of warm glow, people express support to enjoy moral comfort as long as global policies appear unlikely and support harmless.
To test that, I inform a random half of respondents of ongoing international negotiations/initiatives.
The treatment increases support by 1 pp.
To test that, I inform a random half of respondents of ongoing international negotiations/initiatives.
The treatment increases support by 1 pp.
Notice pluralistic ignorance of the support for the Global Climate Scheme (GCS):
The median respondent underestimates support in their country by 16 pp and in the US by 22 pp.
The median respondent underestimates support in their country by 16 pp and in the US by 22 pp.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Notice pluralistic ignorance of the support for the Global Climate Scheme (GCS):
The median respondent underestimates support in their country by 16 pp and in the US by 22 pp.
The median respondent underestimates support in their country by 16 pp and in the US by 22 pp.
We also see that for a Climate Scheme: 69% support if participating countries cover 72% of world emissions, and still 65% support if it only covers 33% of emissions.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
We also see that for a Climate Scheme: 69% support if participating countries cover 72% of world emissions, and still 65% support if it only covers 33% of emissions.
Support for an international policy decreases only slightly as country coverage shrinks.
We also see that for a wealth tax with 30% funding LICs: support is reduced from 74% in the case of global coverage to 68% if only a few countries participate.
We also see that for a wealth tax with 30% funding LICs: support is reduced from 74% in the case of global coverage to 68% if only a few countries participate.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Support for an international policy decreases only slightly as country coverage shrinks.
We also see that for a wealth tax with 30% funding LICs: support is reduced from 74% in the case of global coverage to 68% if only a few countries participate.
We also see that for a wealth tax with 30% funding LICs: support is reduced from 74% in the case of global coverage to 68% if only a few countries participate.
Over two-thirds of people favor a sustainable future with half as much flying and beef consumption and without thermal cars, over the status quo that would maintain lifestyles.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Over two-thirds of people favor a sustainable future with half as much flying and beef consumption and without thermal cars, over the status quo that would maintain lifestyles.
Support for global redistribution stems from a sense of duty or empathy, not guilt or interest.
Consistent with this finding, there is no majority support for reparations for slavery or colonization. => The decolonial narrative is not the most effective for global redistrib.
Consistent with this finding, there is no majority support for reparations for slavery or colonization. => The decolonial narrative is not the most effective for global redistrib.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Support for global redistribution stems from a sense of duty or empathy, not guilt or interest.
Consistent with this finding, there is no majority support for reparations for slavery or colonization. => The decolonial narrative is not the most effective for global redistrib.
Consistent with this finding, there is no majority support for reparations for slavery or colonization. => The decolonial narrative is not the most effective for global redistrib.
Direct questions confirm this finding:
- 36% are more likely to vote for a party if it is part of a global coalition for sustainable development (vs. 17% less likely)
- 68% would support such a coalition (including 52% of the 584 millionaires who answered)
- 45% are universalists
- 36% are more likely to vote for a party if it is part of a global coalition for sustainable development (vs. 17% less likely)
- 68% would support such a coalition (including 52% of the 584 millionaires who answered)
- 45% are universalists
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Direct questions confirm this finding:
- 36% are more likely to vote for a party if it is part of a global coalition for sustainable development (vs. 17% less likely)
- 68% would support such a coalition (including 52% of the 584 millionaires who answered)
- 45% are universalists
- 36% are more likely to vote for a party if it is part of a global coalition for sustainable development (vs. 17% less likely)
- 68% would support such a coalition (including 52% of the 584 millionaires who answered)
- 45% are universalists
The conjoint experiment indicates that global redistribution may be vote-determining for some people. A program is
- 4 p.p. more likely to be preferred if it contains a globally redistributive wealth tax
- 4 p.p. less likely to be preferred if it contains cutting development aid.
- 4 p.p. more likely to be preferred if it contains a globally redistributive wealth tax
- 4 p.p. less likely to be preferred if it contains cutting development aid.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
The conjoint experiment indicates that global redistribution may be vote-determining for some people. A program is
- 4 p.p. more likely to be preferred if it contains a globally redistributive wealth tax
- 4 p.p. less likely to be preferred if it contains cutting development aid.
- 4 p.p. more likely to be preferred if it contains a globally redistributive wealth tax
- 4 p.p. less likely to be preferred if it contains cutting development aid.
Then, still before they could infer the survey's topic, respondents faced a conjoint experiment, where they had to select their preferred political program among two programs composed at random.
Here is one example of a choice respondents could have faced:
Here is one example of a choice respondents could have faced:
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Then, still before they could infer the survey's topic, respondents faced a conjoint experiment, where they had to select their preferred political program among two programs composed at random.
Here is one example of a choice respondents could have faced:
Here is one example of a choice respondents could have faced:
People's most frequent concern is their purchasing power.
Global inequality has low salience, which may explain why so few policymakers campaign on it.
Global inequality has low salience, which may explain why so few policymakers campaign on it.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
People's most frequent concern is their purchasing power.
Global inequality has low salience, which may explain why so few policymakers campaign on it.
Global inequality has low salience, which may explain why so few policymakers campaign on it.
Before respondents could infer the survey's topic, they had to allocate the revenue from a global wealth tax.
87% of respondents allocate a positive amount to the global item. This item receives an average preferred share of 17.5%, slightly below an equal split of 20%.
87% of respondents allocate a positive amount to the global item. This item receives an average preferred share of 17.5%, slightly below an equal split of 20%.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Before respondents could infer the survey's topic, they had to allocate the revenue from a global wealth tax.
87% of respondents allocate a positive amount to the global item. This item receives an average preferred share of 17.5%, slightly below an equal split of 20%.
87% of respondents allocate a positive amount to the global item. This item receives an average preferred share of 17.5%, slightly below an equal split of 20%.
Radical proposals are also widely accepted.
At the end of the thread, I'll explore these radical proposals in more detail.
At the end of the thread, I'll explore these radical proposals in more detail.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Radical proposals are also widely accepted.
At the end of the thread, I'll explore these radical proposals in more detail.
At the end of the thread, I'll explore these radical proposals in more detail.
Policies currently discussed in international negotiations are accepted by large majorities.
The 2% tax on billionaires' wealth proposed by @gabrielzucman.bsky.social receives the strongest support, with a majority of (absolute) support in every country.
The 2% tax on billionaires' wealth proposed by @gabrielzucman.bsky.social receives the strongest support, with a majority of (absolute) support in every country.
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Policies currently discussed in international negotiations are accepted by large majorities.
The 2% tax on billionaires' wealth proposed by @gabrielzucman.bsky.social receives the strongest support, with a majority of (absolute) support in every country.
The 2% tax on billionaires' wealth proposed by @gabrielzucman.bsky.social receives the strongest support, with a majority of (absolute) support in every country.
To know, I conduct an original survey on 12,000 respondents in 11 HICs, with quotas representative along gender, age, income, diploma, region, urbanicity.
🤓Spoiler alert: All hypotheses hold.
Terminology disclaimer:
Acceptance = share of support among non-indifferent
🤓Spoiler alert: All hypotheses hold.
Terminology disclaimer:
Acceptance = share of support among non-indifferent
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
To know, I conduct an original survey on 12,000 respondents in 11 HICs, with quotas representative along gender, age, income, diploma, region, urbanicity.
🤓Spoiler alert: All hypotheses hold.
Terminology disclaimer:
Acceptance = share of support among non-indifferent
🤓Spoiler alert: All hypotheses hold.
Terminology disclaimer:
Acceptance = share of support among non-indifferent
🎴NEW PAPER!🎴
Majorities in 11 HICs support:
✅Foreign aid
✅Debt relief for low-income countries (LICs)
✅An international carbon price financing a worldwide basic income
✅An international 2% tax on wealth above $1 million with 30% funding LICs
and much more.
bsky.app/profile/wid....
A 🧵⬇️
Majorities in 11 HICs support:
✅Foreign aid
✅Debt relief for low-income countries (LICs)
✅An international carbon price financing a worldwide basic income
✅An international 2% tax on wealth above $1 million with 30% funding LICs
and much more.
bsky.app/profile/wid....
A 🧵⬇️
November 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM
🎴NEW PAPER!🎴
Majorities in 11 HICs support:
✅Foreign aid
✅Debt relief for low-income countries (LICs)
✅An international carbon price financing a worldwide basic income
✅An international 2% tax on wealth above $1 million with 30% funding LICs
and much more.
bsky.app/profile/wid....
A 🧵⬇️
Majorities in 11 HICs support:
✅Foreign aid
✅Debt relief for low-income countries (LICs)
✅An international carbon price financing a worldwide basic income
✅An international 2% tax on wealth above $1 million with 30% funding LICs
and much more.
bsky.app/profile/wid....
A 🧵⬇️
➡️ Check out my alternative proposal, which addresses all these limitations: github.com/bixiou/globa...
And recall that, despite the limitations, I strongly vote YES to Wolfram et al. proposal.
And recall that, despite the limitations, I strongly vote YES to Wolfram et al. proposal.
September 16, 2025 at 10:34 PM
➡️ Check out my alternative proposal, which addresses all these limitations: github.com/bixiou/globa...
And recall that, despite the limitations, I strongly vote YES to Wolfram et al. proposal.
And recall that, despite the limitations, I strongly vote YES to Wolfram et al. proposal.
1. In a GREAT paper (why isn't it published??), Anthoff, Dennig & @johannesemm.bsky.social show that most IAMs have a hidden goal of a uniform price and define Negishi weights to arrive at that goal. Yet, carbon price should grow at the discount rate (at least under a carbon budget constraint)...
September 8, 2025 at 5:51 PM
1. In a GREAT paper (why isn't it published??), Anthoff, Dennig & @johannesemm.bsky.social show that most IAMs have a hidden goal of a uniform price and define Negishi weights to arrive at that goal. Yet, carbon price should grow at the discount rate (at least under a carbon budget constraint)...
The Coordinating Lead Author of the IPCC AR7 WGIII report Chapter on Climate Policies works for Saudi Aramco... Really @ipcc.bsky.social?!
August 20, 2025 at 11:04 AM
The Coordinating Lead Author of the IPCC AR7 WGIII report Chapter on Climate Policies works for Saudi Aramco... Really @ipcc.bsky.social?!
✊Entre em contato com @global-redistrib.bsky.social se quiser nos ajudar a tornar esse plano realidade na #COP30!
July 18, 2025 at 12:35 PM
✊Entre em contato com @global-redistrib.bsky.social se quiser nos ajudar a tornar esse plano realidade na #COP30!
