Social Positions and Fairness Views on Inequality
Abstract
We link survey data on Danish people’s perceived income positions and fairness views on inequality within various reference groups to administrative records on their reference groups, income histories, and life events. People are, on average, well-informed about the income levels of their reference groups. Yet, lower-ranked respondents in all groups tend to overestimate their own position among others because they believe others’ incomes are lower than they actually are, whereas the opposite holds true for higher-ranked respondents. Misperceptions of positions in reference groups relate to proximity to other individuals, transparency norms, and visible signals of income. People view inequalities within their co-workers and education groups as significantly more unfair than overall inequality, yet underestimate inequality the most exactly within these groups. Views on the fairness of inequalities are strongly correlated with an individual’s current position, move with shocks like unemployment or promotions, and change when experimentally informing people about their actual positions. However, the higher perceived unfairness of income differences within co-workers and education groups stays unchanged. The theoretical framework shows that this can have important implications for redistribution policy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Attrition and response rates in the survey are comparable to those in previous Danish surveys.
“The attrition and response rates in our survey are comparable to those obtained in previous Danish surveys (Hvidberg, Kreiner and Stantcheva, 2023).”
From Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI (2025) · cites this paper as Hvidberg, Kreiner and Stantcheva, 2023
Cites
Gignac, G. E., & Zajenkowski, M. (2020) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2020.101449 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI
Humlum, A., & Vestergaard, E. (2025) · doi:10.3386/w33777 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Humlum, A., & Vestergaard, E. (2024) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4827166 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hvidberg, K. B., Kreiner, C. T., & Stantcheva, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Center for Economic and Policy Research (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hvidberg, Kristoffer B
- Venue
- Review of Economic Studies
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2023-03-13
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 3083-3118
- ISSN
- 0034-6527 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-937X
- OpenAlex
- W4320855144
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 10 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 44.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Review of Economic Studies (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Keywords
- perceived fairness, income inequality, reference groups, life events, redistributive policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review