Tag: Attitudes
Dreaming of Entrepreneurship or Requiem for a Dream – What Kind of Future Do Parents Envision for Their Children in Belarus?
Even under current conditions in Belarus, society remains focused on freedom and fostering entrepreneurship. The perception of business as a means of minimizing interaction with the state still exists. This policy brief discusses parents’ perceptions of entrepreneurship as a possible area of self-realization for their children in Belarus, to analyze the role of the family in the formation and reproduction of entrepreneurial capital for future generations. The policy brief is based on a representative survey of individuals aged 18 to 64 who reside in Belarus, conducted from June to August 2024. The findings suggest Belarusian parents are largely positive toward entrepreneurship as a future avenue for their children, despite the continuing deterioration of conditions for the business sector.
The perception of private business and entrepreneurship in Belarus has undergone significant transformation over the course of the country’s modern history. Emerging from the Soviet era, which was distinctly anti-entrepreneurial, both the business sector and the Belarusian society have evolved. In a context where mass privatization did not take place, society – initially skeptical of entrepreneurs, often viewing them as dishonest “speculators” – gradually came to recognize that entrepreneurs are generally hardworking individuals who not only generate income for themselves but also create opportunities for others.
Despite the Belarusian authorities’ conservative and often restrictive approach toward business and entrepreneurship, pro-entrepreneurial values have taken root in Belarusian society. This has contributed to the development of a relatively dynamic and productive private sector, increasingly seen as a desirable environment for employment and growth. From 2012 through 2020, the share of the private sector in employment increased by 7.7 percentage points, in export sales of goods and services by 23.9, and in GDP by 14.6 percentage points, respectively (Daneyko et al., 2020).
Over time, businesses in Belarus have thrived, largely due to entrepreneurial skills, investment in human capital, and adaptability to external conditions, rather than reliance on state support or natural resources.
These dynamics further accelerated when Belarusian authorities realized that relying on and investing in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) was not generating the desired economic growth and employment, and a gradual liberalization of business conditions was introduced (Daneyko et al., 2020). This liberalization allowed the government to delay urgent structural reforms needed in the SOE sector, focusing instead on reducing excess employment, which was absorbed by the growing private sector (Chubrik, 2021; BEROC, 2023).
However, following the 2020 presidential elections and subsequent mass protests, the contribution of the private sector to the economy began to be downplayed in official rhetoric. Entrepreneurs were increasingly portrayed as dishonest individuals, profiting from unjustified price increases and lacking loyalty to the state. In response, the government intensified control over entrepreneurial activities, adopting several significant legislative changes aimed at regulating prices and individual entrepreneurs’ activities.
Moreover, the comprehensive sanctions imposed on Belarus in recent years have made the overall business environment more opaque and challenging. These conditions have enhanced the risk of legal violations during business operations, which in turn increases the personal risks for business owners and managers, potentially threatening their personal freedom.
In this hostile environment, families have become the decisive factor influencing one’s decisions about creating businesses and providing emotional, financial, and instrumental support.
Family as a Driver of Entrepreneurial Careers
There is significant evidence that family upbringing plays a crucial role in fostering entrepreneurial qualities and skills in children, which in turn positively influences their interest in starting their own businesses (Chauhan et al., 2024; Osorio et al., 2017). Parents’ knowledge, accumulated experience, and willingness to provide emotional and practical support further encourage entrepreneurial aspirations in children. A family’s support in developing relevant values and qualities also reflects how attractive entrepreneurship is in the eyes of parents.
Families also serve as role models, transmitting best practices and influencing children’s educational and career choices (Edelman et al., 2016). This support can help young people overcome common barriers to entry into entrepreneurship, such as lack of experience, resources, or social capital, increasing the prospect of starting their own.
The role of family support is particularly important in environments with insufficient structural or financial backing for entrepreneurship, as is the case in Belarus (Maleki et al., 2023; Guerrero & Marozau, 2023). In such contexts, the family’s role in fostering entrepreneurial ambition becomes a key factor in enabling the next generation of entrepreneurs to succeed.
Attitudes Towards Entrepreneurs
The perception of business in Belarus is reflected in the general attitude toward entrepreneurs and their role in the economy and society. Parents are the main influencers and role models shaping children’s entrepreneurial attitudes like risk-taking, problem-solving, and independence (Georgescu & Herman, 2020).
In a recent survey of 2,000 Belarusian respondents aged 18 to 64, including 826 parents of children under 18, participants were asked to select the statement that best describes their attitude towards Belarusian entrepreneurs. The findings suggest that individuals with children under 18 tend to have a more positive view of business and are more likely to choose favorable statements about entrepreneurs (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Attitudes towards entrepreneurs
Source: Calculations based on survey data. Note: The graph displays the answers to the question “Which statement best describes your attitude towards Belarusian entrepreneurs?” and is displayed as percent of respondents in the corresponding group.
Almost half of the respondents who have children under 18 (49.9 percent) describe their attitude towards entrepreneurs as the most positive option choice as they “earn their living through honest labor, generate employment opportunities, and stimulate economic development”. This share is significantly higher than among respondents without children (37.8 percent). A very positive attitude toward Belarusian entrepreneurship is also characteristic of young cohorts of respondents aged 18–24 (47.7 percent) and 25–34 (49.5 percent). This resonates well with the distribution found in a previous study by the IPM Research Center and BEROC (2019) and indicates that recent changes in the official rhetoric and entrepreneurship-related legislation have not yet damaged the public image of Belarusian entrepreneurs and businessmen.
Preferred Careers for Children
In the survey, Belarusian parents were asked to select areas of employment (choosing no more than three options) in which they would like to see their sons and daughters. The vast majority (69.2 percent) chose the option “to run their own business, to be entrepreneurs/freelancers” as the desired future for their children. Among other popular areas of activity were entrepreneurships’ antipoles; work within law enforcement agencies (22.9 percent) and civil service (16.1 percent). Interestingly, the choice of a future related to entrepreneurship for a child does not significantly differ by the child’s gender (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Preferred careers for children, by gender
Source: Calculations based on survey data. Note: The graph displays the answers to the question “What would you like your child to do in the future?” and is displayed as percent of respondents in the corresponding group.As one might expect, parents-entrepreneurs more often associate their children’s future with entrepreneurship (80.9 percent) compared to non-entrepreneurial respondents (65.7 percent) (see Figure 3). Similarly, female entrepreneur respondents more often than others prefer their daughters to engage in business in the future (80.9 percent). This level of approval of an entrepreneurial future for daughters may be related to an understanding of the self-realization opportunities that business provides for women, compared to other employment options. Working “for themselves” allows women to avoid barriers and limitations encountered when working for an employer and it may also be associated with schedule flexibility and an ability to improve work-life balance.
Figure 3. Preferred careers for children, by parents’ occupational background
Source: Calculations based on survey data. Note: The graph displays the answers to the question “What would you like your child to do in the future?” and is displayed as percent of respondents in the corresponding group.
Attitudes Towards Entrepreneurship
The attitude towards entrepreneurship was captured by asking parents to choose what they would tell their children if they expressed the intention to become entrepreneurs. Based on interviews and a pilot survey, multiple statements that carried positive, neutral, and negative connotations were presented in the questionnaire (see Figure 4).
Parents interested in their children becoming entrepreneurs in the future tend to foster a positive view of entrepreneurship through encouraging messages about business. From the results, parents tell their children that business is “dream, wealth, and freedom”, with more than half of the respondents who wish for their children to have an “entrepreneurial destiny” choosing this triad to convey that business is a positive path.
Among those who do not see their children in entrepreneurship, these categories also dominate in justifying the attractiveness of business. However, those parents are more cautious and tend to warn their children about the associated risks of uncertainty and instability.
Figure 4. Attitudes towards entrepreneurship
Source: Calculations based on the survey data. Note: The graph displays the answers to the question “Which statements best describe what you would tell a child if he/she expressed a willingness to become an entrepreneur?” and is displayed as percent of respondents in the respective group. Respondents were asked to select all applicable response options.
Overall, the selection of positive associations by most parents indicates a high level of support for children’s interest in entrepreneurship within families. By choosing the triad “dream, wealth and freedom”, parents emphasize priorities related to the formation of free individuals and see potential in their children for engaging in business in the future, despite the existence of, and appeal from, other career choices. Employment (regardless of ownership structure) is much less frequently considered as an appealing prospect for children’s future. The likely rationale is the dependent position of employees within the current sociopolitical context, which partially undermines the benefits of private-sector employment. Therefore, many respondents may perceive employment as “captivity” – in contrast to the freedom associated with entrepreneurship. Thus, the current generation of parents largely want their children to have minimal interactions with the state.
Conclusions
Despite the current challenging conditions for business in Belarus, many parents still see entrepreneurship as a pathway to independence and freedom for their children. The role of the family in nurturing entrepreneurial potential should not be underestimated in this context. The fact that many parents see entrepreneurship as a means of self-realization for their children indicates a sustained positive perception of business within the population, despite the recent years negative portrayal of entrepreneurs in official media outlets.
For many, business is associated with the positive triad of “dream, wealth, and freedom”. This is particularly true for the current generation of parents, whose worldviews were shaped during the relatively open periods of the late 1990s and early 2000s. For them, entrepreneurship represents a means for their children to achieve personal freedom and self-realization without having to leave the country.
However, there is a notable contrast between these aspirations and the reality of doing business in Belarus today – a divergence that could prove pivotal for the future of private business in the country. Entrepreneurship in Belarus has the potential to either become a chance for future generations to help develop the nation (“dreaming of entrepreneurship”) or, if suppressed further, a missed opportunity (“requiem for a dream”).
There is no guarantee that future generations of Belarusians will share the same positive attitude toward entrepreneurship and pro-democratic values as their parents, if they lack real opportunities to start and run businesses or public success stories. The “fork” in the future of entrepreneurship in Belarus has another critical dimension: if parents no longer see opportunities for self-realization within the country, they may consider leaving it. Following the 2020 political crisis, Belarus has seen significant emigration driven by the risks of domestic criminal prosecution and the search for safety abroad.
The main implications for the decision-makers concerned with a future stable, predictable and democratic Belarus, could thus be the following:
- Supporting entrepreneurship as a driver of democratic values: In a non-democratic environment, entrepreneurs are known to act as carriers and multipliers of pro-democratic values such as freedom, personal responsibility, and self-determination. (Audretsch & Moog, 2022; Marozau, 2023). The (still) positive attitudes to entrepreneurship, intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurial values, and overall survival of the Belarusian private should be perceived, and treated, as a foundation for counteracting (some of the) ongoing negative institutional developments.
- Transmitting pro-entrepreneurial values to future generations: With the same idea in mind, it is important to support families transmitting pro-entrepreneurial values to future generations by complementing their efforts through, e.g., education. This can be realized by offering additional training programs for children and adolescents, such as financial literacy schools, business clubs, and leadership schools.
- Advancing the role of female entrepreneurship: The increasing participation of women in entrepreneurship presents an opportunity to transfer values, particularly to daughters, and thereby preserving entrepreneurial capital and overcoming gender inequality issues in Belarus.
Acknowledgment
The study underlying this policy brief was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). BEROC acknowledges support by Pyxera Global whose financial and technical assistance for INNOVATE is part of a USAID-funded activity to support the innovative-based economy and private sector growth in Belarus.
The contents of this brief are the sole responsibility of BEROC and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States government.
References
- Audretsch, D. B., & Moog, P. (2022). Democracy and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(2), 368–392.
- BEROC. (2023). Development of the private sector. Instead of reforms and for the economic sovereignty of Belarus. Ideas Bank (In Russian)
- Chauhan, S., Chauhan, K., Singh, S., Mahlawat, S., Kumar, V., & Singh, S. (2024). Analyzing family support mediating role between motivational factors and sustainable entrepreneurial intentions: A study on university students, Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 3(3).
- Chubrik, А., 2021. Back to the Future or a Short Historical Note on the Belarusian Private Sector. Discussion paper #2021/03 (in Russian).
- Daneyko, P., Chubryk, А., Hayduk, К., Bornukova, К., & Kruk, D. (2020). Transformation of the state-owned commercial enterprises in Belarus, IPM Research, Discussion paper PDP/20/07; BEROC, Policy Paper no. 100. (in Russian)
- Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T., Shirokova, G., & Tsukanova, T. (2016).The impact of family support on young entrepreneurs’ start-up activities, Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4), 428–448.
- Georgescu, M. A., & Herman, E. (2020). The impact of the family background on students’ entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical analysis. Sustainability, 12(11), 4775.
- Guerrero, M., & Marozau, R. (2023). Assessing the influence of institutions on students’ entrepreneurial dynamics: evidence from European post-socialist and market-oriented economies. Small Business Economics, 60(2), 503-519.
- Maleki, A., Moghaddam, K., Cloninger, P., & John Cullen, J. (2023). A cross-national study of youth entrepreneurship: The effect of family support, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 24(1) 44–57.
- Marozau, R. (2023). Belarusian business in turbulent times. FREE Policy Brief
- Osorio, A. E., Settles, A., & Shen, T. (2017). Does family support matter? The influence of support factors on entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions of college students, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 23(1), 24–43.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.
Preferences for Redistribution in Post-Communist Countries
Public attitudes toward inequality and the demand for redistribution can often play an import role in terms of shaping social policy. The literature on determinants of the demand for redistribution, both theoretical and empirical, is extensive (e.g., Meltzer and Richard 1981, Alesina and Angelotos 2005). Usually, due to data limitations, transition countries are usually considered to be a homogeneous group in empirical papers on the demand for redistribution. However, new data on transition countries allow us to look more deeply into the variation within this group, and to look at which factors are likely to play a significant role in shaping a society’s preferences over redistribution.
The data we use are from the second round of the EBRD and WB Life in Transition Survey (LiTS) (EBRD Transition Report 2011). This is a survey of nationally representative samples consisting of at least 1000 individuals in each of the 29 transition countries.[1] In addition, and for comparison purposes, this survey also covers Turkey, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and UK. Furthermore, in six of the countries surveyed – Poland, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and UK – the sample consists of 1500 individuals.
Redistribution is, in general, a complex issue, which can take various forms and rely on different mechanisms. In this policy brief, we will only focus on two forms of public attitudes towards redistribution. The first is direct income redistribution from the rich to the poor and public preferences for or against this form of redistribution. The second is indirect redistribution through the provision of public goods, some of which favor certain groups of population over others. In particular, we will consider preferences over extra government spending allocations in the areas of education, healthcare, pensions, housing, environment and public infrastructure. Generally, we would like to explore in greater detail to what extent there are differences across countries in terms of public preferences over redistribution and what might explain differences both within and across societies.
Both survey rounds include questions regarding public preferences towards income redistribution, direct (from the rich to the poor) and indirect (through government spending towards certain public goods). Data for exploring public preferences for direct redistribution can be obtained from a question in the survey that asks respondents to score from 1 to 10 whether they prefer more income inequality or less. More specifically, in the LiTS 2010, the question is the following:
Q 3.16a “How would you place your views on this scale: 1 means that you agree completely with the statement on the left “Incomes should be made more equal”; 10 means that you agree with the statement on the right “We need larger income differences as incentives for individual effort”; and if your views fall somewhere in between, you can choose any number in between?
Note, however, that we use the reverse of this so that 10 represents greater equality and 1 represents wider differences. Bearing this in mind, figure 1 shows the average scores for redistribution preferences for a selection of the countries for 2010 and shows a sizeable variation ranging from 4.4 (more inequality) in Bulgaria to 7.87 (greater equality) in Slovenia. The mean for Russia is 6.92.
The data also allows for a comparison to be made between these preferences in transition countries and in the developed economies covered in the survey. For instance, Russians are on average close to Germans in their preferences for redistribution, while Estonians and Belarusians prefer less redistribution and are closer to the British, on average.
Figure 1. Preferences for Direct Redistribution
Indirect measures of attitudes towards redistribution can add further depth to these societies’ preferences. In particular, the indirect measures in the 2010 survey are derived from a question that asks respondents to rate from 1 to 7 their first priorities for extra government spending.
Q 3.05a “In your opinion, which of these fields should be the first priority for extra government spending: Education; Healthcare; Housing; Pensions; Assisting the poor; Environment (including water quality); Public infrastructures (public transport, roads, etc.); Other (specify)”?
The country averages for these indirect measures for 2010 are presented in Figure 2. The graph reveals a sizeable cross-country variation. For instance, 43.5% of respondents in Mongolia preferred channeling extra government money to education, while 48.7% of respondents in Armenia selected higher healthcare spending. Almost 39% of respondents in Azerbaijan chose assistance to the poor as the first priority for government spending, while the corresponding figure was only 8.3% in Bulgaria and 4% in the Czech Republic. More than 34% of the Russians choose healthcare as their first priority, another 20% choose education, 15% would like the money to be channeled to housing, 14.5% to pensions, 11% to support the poor, 3% to support environment, and only 2% to public infrastructure (2010).
These numbers highlight that there are sizeable differences across the transition countries regarding preferences for redistribution. Also, regarding the form of indirect redistribution in terms of preferences over how government budgets should be prioritized and allocated. Several groups of factors or determinants are typically listed in academic literature to help explain what drives public preferences over the degree and form of redistribution. In the first group of factors, there are various determinants at the individual level. Within the group of individual determinants, self-interest or rational choice of a degree of redistribution favorable to the individual with usual (individual) preferences are stressed. Alternatively, motives behind a preference for redistribution can be related to social preferences (preferences for justice or equity) and reciprocity. Within this general group of self-interest, attitudes towards risks can be stressed as a crucial factor behind demands for social insurance and hence for indirect forms of redistribution. Individuals’ prospects of upward mobility, expectations about their future welfare or ‘tunnel effect’ in shaping their views and preferences over redistribution are also underlined. Also, the commonly held beliefs about the causes of prosperity and poverty are considered to be important in shaping the public’s attitudes under the umbrella of social preferences.
The literature covers possible institutional determinants for preferences towards redistribution and emphasizes the role of the level of inequality in a society and typically relates to the median voter hypothesis in democracies. It is also stressed that welfare regimes (liberal, conservative) can play a role in shaping the level of public support for redistribution.
Figure 2. Preferences for Indirect Redistribution
A closer examination of the data and estimates of the factors shaping individuals preferences over redistribution in the 2010 survey, are consistent with motives involving strong self-interests of the respondents.[2] Those from richer households have less support for redistribution, with the result being robust to the measure of household income used. The past trend in household income positions is insignificant, while the higher the expected income position of household in the coming four years, the less supportive the respondents are of income redistribution (elasticity -0.1). Those who experienced severe hardships with the recent crisis tend to support redistribution more than those who had little problems or not at all (elasticity 0.13).
Furthermore, the role of preferences towards uncertainty is confirmed: the higher the (self-reported) willingness to take risks, the less likely the individual is to support or favor redistribution. Respondents with tertiary education are less inclined to support redistribution of income from the rich to the poor, compared to those with secondary education (elasticity is -0.4). Having a successful experience with business start-ups also decreases demand for income redistribution from the rich to the poor (elasticity -0.3). Those living in rural areas are more in favor of redistribution compared to metropolitan areas, while living in urban areas shows the same level of support for redistribution as those living in metropolitan areas. In each of these cases, it appears that those who would benefit the most from redistribution favor it more than those who view it as coming at their expense, or possible expense in the future.
Beliefs regarding the origins of success and poverty are also shown to be statistically significant and negative, as predicted: those who believe effort and hard work or intelligence and skills are the major factors for success are less supportive of income redistribution (elasticity -0.16). Those who consider laziness and lack of will power the major factors for people’s lack of success are also, consistently, less supportive of redistribution (elasticity -0.2).
It also turns out that better democratic institutions are correlated with a higher demand for redistribution. The result is robust across the measures used, i.e. it does not seem to depend on the particular measure used. The size of the effect is quite pronounced: a one standard deviation increase in the democracy measure increases demand for redistribution from 16 percentage points, when the voice and accountability measure is used, to 33 and 36 percentage points when controls of the executives and democracy index are used.
Furthermore, the better the governance institutions, as measured by the rule of law and control of corruption indexes, the higher is the demand for redistribution. However, the result is not robust to the various measures used. Government effectiveness appears to be insignificant (though with a positive direction), and the regulatory quality measure is insignificant but with a negative direction. The size of the effects is again quite pronounced. A one standard deviation increase in the rule of law measure increases demand for redistribution by 17 percentage points, and a one standard deviation increase in the control of corruption measure increases demand for redistribution by 27 percentage points.
The higher the level of inequality, the larger is the demand for redistribution as might be expected. This result is robust across all measures used. The size of the effect varies from 16 to 18 percentage points in response to a one standard deviation increase.
A regression analysis of preferences towards indirect redistribution also shows that self-interest motives are very pronounced, but there are traces of social preferences as well. In particular, younger people (age 18-24) would like to have more subsidized education and housing at the expense of healthcare and pensions in comparison with the age 35-44 reference group. Those in the age 25-34 group would like to redistribute public spending to housing and environment at the expense of education, pensions and public infrastructure. Respondents in the age 45-54 group would also like to redistribute additional spending from education but to pensions. The two groups of older people (age 55-64 and 65+) would like to shift extra spending from education and housing to healthcare and pensions. The group of age 65+ would also like to shift money from assistance to the poor.
Respondents with tertiary education (in comparison with holders of a secondary degree) favor extra spending for education, environment and public infrastructure at the expense of healthcare, pensions and assisting to the poor, thus revealing additional elements of social motivations. Respondents with primary education, when compared to holders of secondary degree, would like to redistribute public money from education to pensions and assistance to the poor. Respondents with poor health favor additional spending on healthcare and pensions at the expense of education.
High skilled (in terms of occupational groups) respondents would like to redistribute public money from pensions to education. Those with market relevant experience of being successful in setting up a business tend to support education and public infrastructure at the expense of housing and pensions, though the result lack statistical power.
Respondents from households with higher income support extra spending for education, environment and public infrastructure at the expense of healthcare, pensions and assistance to the poor; again pointing to the other elements of possible social motivations. Those with a self-reported positive past trend in income position tend to support spending extra money on the environment at the expense of assistance to the poor (the latter lacks statistical power). If the respondent lives in its own house or apartment, s/he tends to support redistribution from housing and assistance to the poor, to healthcare and pensions.
Respondents whose households were strongly affected by the crisis would like expenditure on environment and public infrastructure to be reduced. Those with higher self-reported willingness to take risks would redistribute extra public money to education at the expense of healthcare and housing.
Respondents who believe that success in life is mainly due to effort and hard work, intelligence and skills favor education at the expense of assistance to the poor and public infrastructure, suggesting they might view education as the key to escape poverty. Those who think that laziness and lack of willpower are the main factors behind poverty would, unsurprisingly, redistribute extra public money from assistance to the poor to healthcare.
Males (as compared to females) favor extra spending on education, housing, environment and public infrastructure at the expense of healthcare. The self-employed favor extra spending of public money to pensions at the expense of housing. There is no difference across respondents living in metropolitan, rural or urban locations.
A regression analysis shows that better democratic institutions are correlated with higher support for allocation of additional public spending to education and healthcare, environment and public infrastructure. The effects are larger for education and healthcare: one standard deviation in the democracy index increases the support for spending money on education by 3 percentage points, for healthcare by 3.1 percentage points, and only by 0.4 and 0.6 percentage points for environment and public infrastructure, respectively. This reallocation is at the expense of assistance to the poor (3.5 percentage points), housing (2.6 percentage points) and pensions (1.1 percentage points). The pattern is robust to the measure of democratic institutions used, though the marginal effects vary slightly depending on the measure.
The influence of governance institutions is similar. Respondents in countries with better governance institutions favor allocation of extra public money to education (3.2 percentage points in response to one standard deviation in government effectiveness), health care (2.9 percentage points), environment (0.9 percentage points) and public infrastructure (0.6 percentage points). The reallocation is at the expense of assistance to the poor (4.2 percentage points), housing (3.3 percentage points) and pensions (0.2 percentage points). The pattern is also robust to the measure of governance institutions with the marginal effects varying slightly depending on the measure.
The higher the level of inequality in a country, the higher the demand for spending extra public money for education at the expense of assistance to the poor, pensions and public infrastructure. A one standard deviation increase in the index, increases demand for spending extra public money on education by 3.8 percentage points, and decreases spending on assistance to the poor by 2 percentage points, pensions by 1.9 percentage points, and public infrastructure by 0.06 percentage points. The results are robust to the inequality measure used.
Overall, the analysis provides empirical evidence that transitional countries are not homogeneous with respect to preferences for redistribution, with sizeable variations in country averages and in public preferences. The study of individual determinants of preferences for redistribution confirms a dominant role of self-interest, with some indications of social sentiments as well. In addition to the usual measures used in individual level analysis, these data allow better control for both positive and negative personal and household experience. The study of institutional determinants also confirms the role of income inequality in shaping public attitudes. In particular, higher inequality is confirmed to increase the demand for direct income redistribution. A novel motive of the paper is the influence of democracy and governance institutions on demand for redistribution. Better democracy and governance institutions are likely to stimulate demand for income redistribution, revealing both higher societal demand for redistribution and appreciation of the potential capability of the government to implement redistribution effectively.
The study of individual determinants of indirect demand for redistribution adds to the overall picture and confirms not only the self-interest motives but also social preferences especially pronounced among people with tertiary education and in high income groups. Better democratic and governance institutions stimulate redistribution of public money towards education, healthcare, environment and public infrastructure, while weaker democratic and governance institutions increases demand for allocation of public money to assistance to the poor, housing and pensions.
▪
References
Meltzer, A., Richards, S., 1981. “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government”. Journal of Political Economy 1989, 914–927.
Alesina, A., Angeletos, G.M., 2005. “Fairness and Redistribution”. The American Economic Review, 95(4), 960-98
[1] The countries covered were: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, FYROM, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
[2] The basic empirical equation to study individual determinants of public preferences towards income redistribution is the OLS with country fixed effects (for direct redistribution) and multinomial regression with country fixed effects (for indirect measures). When studying the influence of institutions, the equations are transformed to replace country fixed effects with an institutional measure (one at a time). To control for the basic economic differences, average GDP per capita was included.