The study explores the fairness of redistributive justice, focusing on how individuals' perceptions of brute luck (random chance) influence their support for government redistribution through public policies, specifically concerning health and environmental initiatives. The concept of redistributive justice considers four factors influencing success: social circumstances, effort, option luck, and brute luck. Different perspectives exist on the extent to which these factors should be compensated through redistribution, ranging from libertarian views (no compensation) to egalitarian views (compensation for all factors except effort). Individual preferences for redistribution are also affected by self-serving biases, where individuals' personal endowments influence their support for policies. This paper investigates how perceived brute luck, a factor beyond individual control, influences these preferences for health and environmental policies. Health is viewed as a mixed public-private good, while the environment is primarily a public good. This distinction is expected to influence the self-serving biases observed in redistribution preferences. The study uses a unique hybrid survey approach combining a large-scale, simultaneous, self-administered survey with interactive computer-administered willingness-to-pay questions. This method minimizes interviewer bias and enhances the quality of responses.

Existing literature on redistribution focuses on fairness views and the responsibility cut-off for compensation. Libertarians argue against any compensation, while egalitarians advocate for complete compensation. Intermediate views suggest compensation for circumstances, circumstances and brute luck, or all factors except effort. Studies using laboratory experiments often involve earned-money and money-distribution phases to examine redistributive preferences. These studies show that self-serving bias affects individual preferences for redistribution. This paper aims to extend this research by examining the influence of perceived brute luck on preferences for redistribution in real-world policy contexts, namely health and environmental policies.

Data was collected from three surveys (2000, 2006, and 2008) conducted in the Bouches-du-Rhône department of France. A unique survey design involved a large number of respondents simultaneously answering self-administered questionnaires and interactive willingness-to-pay questions using electronic voting machines. This ensured anonymity and minimized interviewer bias. The study analyzes the preferences for redistribution towards the environment (Redis_Env) and health (Redis_Health) using three statistical models: Multinomial Logit (ML), Ordered Logit (OL), and Generalized Ordered Logit (GOL). The dependent variables, Redis_Env and Redis_Health, represent the level of support for redistribution (strong, moderate, weak, minimal). Explanatory variables included perceived brute luck, age, gender, employment status, education, household income, relationship status, presence of minors, and homeownership. The GOL model, which proved statistically superior to ML and OL based on likelihood ratio tests and AIC, allowed for the relaxation of the parallel-lines assumption, accommodating differing effects of characteristics on different response categories. Marginal effects were computed to analyze the impact of each variable on the probability of selecting each response category. Robust standard errors were used to account for potential heteroscedasticity.

The Generalized Ordered Logit (GOL) model was found to be the most appropriate statistical model for analyzing the data, outperforming both Multinomial Logit (ML) and Ordered Logit (OL) models. The analysis revealed that perceived brute luck had opposite effects on redistribution preferences for environmental and health policies. Individuals perceiving themselves as having higher-than-average brute luck were significantly more likely to support stronger redistribution towards the environment, whereas they were significantly less likely to support redistribution towards health. This indicates a self-serving bias, whereby individuals' personal experiences influence their preferences for redistribution, particularly in the case of health. Specifically, those with a higher perceived level of brute luck were 9.7% more likely to support a moderate level of redistribution in favor of the environment, and 15.6% less likely to support minimal redistribution. Conversely, they were 8.9% more likely to support minimal redistribution for health, and 5.4% less likely to support strong or moderate levels. Other socio-demographic factors also influenced redistribution preferences, particularly regarding environmental policies. Higher household income was associated with lower support for redistribution toward environmental causes. This suggests that wealthier individuals may have greater resources to mitigate the negative effects of environmental issues or believe they bear less responsibility for collective environmental action. Conversely, employed females demonstrated a greater inclination toward supporting redistribution in favor of health. The study also found a significant positive effect of the year of the survey on willingness to support redistribution in favor of both health and environmental initiatives.

The findings demonstrate a clear difference in how perceived brute luck influences support for redistribution concerning environmental and health policies. The contrasting effects suggest the presence of a self-serving bias in preferences for health redistribution, absent in environmental redistribution. The results support the notion that health, being a more immediate and personal concern, elicits self-interested preferences, while environmental issues, being more collective and long-term, are less susceptible to such bias. The socio-demographic factors influencing redistribution preferences highlight the interplay between personal circumstances, resources, and attitudes towards collective responsibility. The study’s results offer valuable insight into the complexities of redistributive justice and the need to consider context-specific factors when designing policies related to health and the environment.

This study provides valuable insights into how perceived brute luck influences preferences for redistribution in favor of environmental and health policies. The findings demonstrate contrasting effects, highlighting the presence of a self-serving bias for health but not for the environment. Methodologically, the study advocates for using GOL models for analyzing ordinal data, showcasing their advantage in accommodating differing effects of variables on different response categories. Future research should explore similar attitudes toward redistribution in various policy domains, investigate the underlying mechanisms behind the observed biases, and examine the role of other luck factors (option luck, effort, social circumstances) in shaping redistributive preferences.

The study's limitations include the cross-sectional nature of the data, which precludes tracking individual changes over time. Additionally, the study cannot definitively disentangle whether the differences in brute luck's effects on redistribution preferences stem from intrinsic fairness views or varying levels of self-serving bias. The study also doesn't account for the respondents' current health status, health-related behaviors, or anticipated future health, which could influence their support for health redistribution. Future research with longitudinal data and controlled experiments is needed to address these limitations.