Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/271842 
Year of Publication: 
2022
Series/Report no.: 
CESifo Working Paper No. 10198
Publisher: 
Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo), Munich
Abstract: 
Debates about affirmative action often revolve around fairness. Accordingly, we document substantial heterogeneity in the fairness perception of various affirmative action policies. But do these differences translate into different consequences? In a laboratory experiment, we study three different quota rules in tournaments that favor individuals whose performance is low, either due to discrimination, low productivity, or choice of a short working time. Affirmative action favoring discriminated individuals is perceived as fairest, followed by that targeting individuals with a short working time, while favoring low productivity individuals is not perceived as fairer than an absence of affirmative action. Higher fairness perceptions coincide with a higher willingness to compete and less retaliation against winners, underlining that fairness perceptions matter for the consequences of affirmative action. No policy harms overall productivity or post-competition teamwork, but affirmative action may reduce the average output of tournament winners.
Subjects: 
affirmative action
fairness ideals
experiment
tournament
real effort
JEL: 
C91
D02
D63
Document Type: 
Working Paper
Appears in Collections:

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.