Needs Versus Ranks. Can Needs Considerations Reduce the Negative Effect of Rank Reversals on the Acceptance of Redistribution?

A plethora of studies have been conducted to investigate why people reject redistribution. Among others, previous research has shown that individuals sometimes reject redistribution if that would imply changes in the rankings of individuals within an income distribution. However, research on the topic has thus far been limited to instances in which redistribution was viewed as a means of reducing inequality. Yet, redistribution can also serve as a means to ensure that everybody’s needs are met. Therefore, the question arises as to whether individuals are willing to reject rank-reversing redistributions, even if they are necessary to meet the needs of the poorest members. This study fills the gap by examining the effects of rank reversals on redistribution when the redistribution is required to satisfy needs.
To achieve this, the theoretical part of this study tries to incorporate a no-reranking principle into the well-established and widely accepted list of distributive justice principles by elaborating on its theoretical background and exploring its relationship with the established principles, particularly the equality and need principles. This part concludes that although equality is a fundamental principle of distributive justice, strict equality is often disregarded when other factors are present. People seem to apply the no-reranking principle when rank reversals happen, but this principle is normatively quite weak. On the other hand, the needs principle is morally incredibly strong, so if we emphasize needs rather than just equality, people might be less opposed to rank reversals.
To examine the effects of rank reversals on redistribution empirically, an oTree online experiment on MTurk (with recruitment via CloudResearch) was conducted. In a third-party dictator game, a redistributor has to accept or reject a transfer of a suggested amount of money from a richer to a poorer person. Both participants had to get a certain amount of money to participate in a subsequent paid questionnaire. Yet, in some treatments, the poorer person was below that threshold. In total, 100 dictators had to evaluate 80 choice situations, one of which was randomly chosen and applied to the other two participants in the group (200 participants). This study showed the same inhibiting effects of rank reversals on the acceptance of redistribution as prior studies, but as soon as the redistribution was needed to satisfy the poorer persons’ needs, the inhibiting effect of rank reversals almost vanished.