Income Contingency and the Electorate's Support for Tuition
Open accessAbstract
We show that the electorate’s preferences for using tuition to finance higher education strongly depend on the design of the payment scheme. In representative surveys of the German electorate (N>18,000), experimentally replacing regular upfront by deferred income-contingent payments increases public support for tuition by 18 percentage points. The treatment turns a plurality opposed to tuition into a strong majority of 62 percent in favor. Additional experiments reveal that the treatment effect similarly shows when framed as loan repayments, when answers carry political consequences, and in a survey of adolescents. Reduced fairness concerns and improved student situations act as strong mediators.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
German voters are more likely to support increases in tuition fees when the policy is paired with income-contingent repayments post-college.
“a recent working paper finds that German voters, when surveyed about their support for various policy options, are much more likely to say they support increases in tuition fees when the experimenters paired the policy with income-contingent repayments post-college (Lergetporer & Woessmann 2022).”
From College Costs, Financial Aid, and Student Decisions (2022) · cites this paper as Lergetporer & Woessmann 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
The nature of credit constraints and human capital
Lochner, L. J., & Monge-Naranjo, A. (2011) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.101.6.2487 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
The end of free college in England: Implications for enrolments, equity, and quality
Murphy, R., Scott-Clayton, J., & Wyness, G. (2019) · Economics of Education Review · doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.11.007 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
College Costs, Financial Aid, and Student Decisions
Dynarski, S., Page, L., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2022) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w30275 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lergetporer, P., & Woessmann, L.
- Affiliations
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- Ifo Institute for Economic Research (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Lergetporer, Philipp
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4205761402
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion)
- Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
- Universitätsbibliothek der LMU
- Funders
- Leibniz-Gemeinschaft (CRC TRR 190, SAW-2014-ifo-2)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Politics, Economics, and Education Policy
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Keywords
- tuition fees, higher education funding, income-contingent loans, deferred payment, public opinion, framing effects, fairness concerns, student debt, adolescents
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
