We examine whether individuals express positional and egalitarian preferences over macroeconomic indicators, addressing a gap in the literature, which has primarily focused on microeconomic variables, such as individual income, educational level, physical attractiveness and so on.
We use a survey experiment to test preferences for various macroeconomic indicators, including inflation, poverty, research and development (R&D) spending, unemployment, debt ratio, overall happiness and the global sustainability index.
While positional and egalitarian concerns play a significant role in some domains, previous studies may have overestimated positional concerns. A majority of respondents expressed strong egalitarian preferences for several macroeconomic indicators, challenging conventional economic theory.
Governments often use comparisons when communicating about macroeconomic indicators. Some countries overrely on rankings of various kinds. We urge them to pay more attention to the reductionist, simplistic and ideologically biased nature of these tools. A shift in policies and public narratives toward reducing societal well-being gaps and fostering shared progress may be needed, rather than a narrow focus on economic competition.
Our results indicate that individuals may be more supportive of policies that improve conditions for all rather than those that enhance relative position, which has implications for the design and communication of economic policies.
This study extends the analysis of positional and egalitarian preferences to macroeconomic indicators, providing new insights into how individuals perceive national economic performance relative to other countries. It also employs a refined experimental survey to better estimate the relevance of relative standings by controlling for whether individuals choose positional options due to genuine relative standing concerns or non-monotonic preferences.
