Jeffrey Yusof
@jyusof.bsky.social
Assistant Professor at @unistuttgart.bsky.social and @pegdev.bsky.social. PhD from @econ.uzh.ch. Behavioral and political economist - interested in inequality, fairness, and political preferences.
Webpage: https://www.jeffreyyusof.com/
Webpage: https://www.jeffreyyusof.com/
Does the market luck effect generalize to real-world market settings?
In a complementary vignette study based on real-world scenarios, we again find that individuals perceive inequalities as fairer when caused by external market shocks rather than by brute luck.
[9/14]
In a complementary vignette study based on real-world scenarios, we again find that individuals perceive inequalities as fairer when caused by external market shocks rather than by brute luck.
[9/14]
January 15, 2025 at 8:53 AM
Does the market luck effect generalize to real-world market settings?
In a complementary vignette study based on real-world scenarios, we again find that individuals perceive inequalities as fairer when caused by external market shocks rather than by brute luck.
[9/14]
In a complementary vignette study based on real-world scenarios, we again find that individuals perceive inequalities as fairer when caused by external market shocks rather than by brute luck.
[9/14]
Do we see similar patterns across different cultural contexts?
We ran additional experiments in France and China (N=3,500).
The order of implemented inequality is consistent across all countries (bl<ml<ef), but the magnitude of the market luck effect varies.
[8/14]
We ran additional experiments in France and China (N=3,500).
The order of implemented inequality is consistent across all countries (bl<ml<ef), but the magnitude of the market luck effect varies.
[8/14]
January 15, 2025 at 8:53 AM
Do we see similar patterns across different cultural contexts?
We ran additional experiments in France and China (N=3,500).
The order of implemented inequality is consistent across all countries (bl<ml<ef), but the magnitude of the market luck effect varies.
[8/14]
We ran additional experiments in France and China (N=3,500).
The order of implemented inequality is consistent across all countries (bl<ml<ef), but the magnitude of the market luck effect varies.
[8/14]
We find a substantial market luck effect:
Spectators implement 50% more inequality (Gini coef) in the market luck treatment than in the brute luck treatment—about half of the effort treatment effect.
This difference mirrors the inequality gap between Denmark and the U.S.!
[6/14]
Spectators implement 50% more inequality (Gini coef) in the market luck treatment than in the brute luck treatment—about half of the effort treatment effect.
This difference mirrors the inequality gap between Denmark and the U.S.!
[6/14]
January 15, 2025 at 8:53 AM
We find a substantial market luck effect:
Spectators implement 50% more inequality (Gini coef) in the market luck treatment than in the brute luck treatment—about half of the effort treatment effect.
This difference mirrors the inequality gap between Denmark and the U.S.!
[6/14]
Spectators implement 50% more inequality (Gini coef) in the market luck treatment than in the brute luck treatment—about half of the effort treatment effect.
This difference mirrors the inequality gap between Denmark and the U.S.!
[6/14]
To benchmark our main treatment effect, we also implement an *effort* treatment:
Here, effort levels are no longer fixed; instead, relative performance on the task determines which worker receives the high income.
[5/14]
Here, effort levels are no longer fixed; instead, relative performance on the task determines which worker receives the high income.
[5/14]
January 15, 2025 at 8:53 AM
To benchmark our main treatment effect, we also implement an *effort* treatment:
Here, effort levels are no longer fixed; instead, relative performance on the task determines which worker receives the high income.
[5/14]
Here, effort levels are no longer fixed; instead, relative performance on the task determines which worker receives the high income.
[5/14]
In our control treatment, there are no buyers, and income is determined by a coin flip - *brute luck *.
Key points:
1. In both treatments, which worker receives the high income is entirely random.
2. All workers provide the same level of effort.
[4/14]
Key points:
1. In both treatments, which worker receives the high income is entirely random.
2. All workers provide the same level of effort.
[4/14]
January 15, 2025 at 8:53 AM
In our control treatment, there are no buyers, and income is determined by a coin flip - *brute luck *.
Key points:
1. In both treatments, which worker receives the high income is entirely random.
2. All workers provide the same level of effort.
[4/14]
Key points:
1. In both treatments, which worker receives the high income is entirely random.
2. All workers provide the same level of effort.
[4/14]
How do people perceive these inequalities? How do they redistribute earnings between workers?
Our main outcome variable is the redistributive choices of nearly 2,000 subjects from the general U.S. population, who act as third-party spectators.
[3/14]
Our main outcome variable is the redistributive choices of nearly 2,000 subjects from the general U.S. population, who act as third-party spectators.
[3/14]
January 15, 2025 at 8:53 AM
How do people perceive these inequalities? How do they redistribute earnings between workers?
Our main outcome variable is the redistributive choices of nearly 2,000 subjects from the general U.S. population, who act as third-party spectators.
[3/14]
Our main outcome variable is the redistributive choices of nearly 2,000 subjects from the general U.S. population, who act as third-party spectators.
[3/14]
In this paper, co-authored with Simona Sartor, we design an experiment that creates income inequality between workers with different skills.
By randomly matching workers with buyers who require specific skills, we generate income inequalities driven by *market luck*.
[2/14]
By randomly matching workers with buyers who require specific skills, we generate income inequalities driven by *market luck*.
[2/14]
January 15, 2025 at 8:53 AM
In this paper, co-authored with Simona Sartor, we design an experiment that creates income inequality between workers with different skills.
By randomly matching workers with buyers who require specific skills, we generate income inequalities driven by *market luck*.
[2/14]
By randomly matching workers with buyers who require specific skills, we generate income inequalities driven by *market luck*.
[2/14]
🚨Job Market Paper Alert 🚨
A significant part of inequality stems from market forces beyond individual control - what we call *market luck*.
In meritocratic societies, this raises a key question: Do people perceive these inequalities as fair? [1/14]
A significant part of inequality stems from market forces beyond individual control - what we call *market luck*.
In meritocratic societies, this raises a key question: Do people perceive these inequalities as fair? [1/14]
January 15, 2025 at 8:53 AM
🚨Job Market Paper Alert 🚨
A significant part of inequality stems from market forces beyond individual control - what we call *market luck*.
In meritocratic societies, this raises a key question: Do people perceive these inequalities as fair? [1/14]
A significant part of inequality stems from market forces beyond individual control - what we call *market luck*.
In meritocratic societies, this raises a key question: Do people perceive these inequalities as fair? [1/14]