Lotteries could be a just and cost-effective procedure to distribute government benefits in contexts of oversubscription, with the added benefit of allowing assessments of the impact of government programs. However, little is known about whether there is public support for employing lotteries in this context. We examine support for a lottery that selects recipients of new government-built housing units in Brazil and find that neither lotteries participants nor the general public supports their use. We arrive at this result by employing a three-pronged multi-method approach. Quasi-experimental analysis of an original survey of lottery participants reveals that support not only is tepid, but substantially higher among winners than non-winners. In-depth interviews suggest that applicants believe lotteries miss the most deserving beneficiaries. A general population survey experiment reveals that lotteries are not perceived as just or efficient when compared to alternative beneficiary selection methods. While sometimes normatively desirable, the use of lotteries for government programs enjoys limited popular support.
BuenoN. S.NunesF.ZuccoC. (2023). What you see and what you get: Direct and indirect political dividends of public policies. British Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 1273–1292. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123423000017
5.
BuenoN.NunesF.ZuccoC. (2022). Making the bourgeoisie? Values, voice, and state-provided homeownership. The Journal of Politics, 84(1), 719275. https://doi.org/10.1086/719275
6.
BuenoN.NunesF.ZuccoC. (2024). Replication data for: Benefits by luck: A study of lotteries as a selection method for government programs. URL. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/C8C6CP
7.
BuenoN. S. (2021). The timing of public policies: Political budget cycles and credit claiming. American Journal of Political Science Online First, 67(4), 996–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12688
ChagasA. L. S.RochaG. M. (2019). Housing program and social conditions impact: Evidences from Minha Casa Minha Vida program lotteries in Brazil. Working Papers Department of Economics USP 40.
DevereuxS.MassetE.Sabates-WheelerR.SamsonM.RivasA. M.te LinteloD. (2017). The targeting effectiveness of social transfers. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9(2), 162–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2017.1305981
GroverS.McClellandA.FurnhamA. (2020). Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation: Differences between experts and the general public and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Health Psychology, 25(4), 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12439
17.
HeckP. R.ChabrisC. F.WattsD. J.MeyerM. N. (2020). Objecting to experiments even while approving of the policies or treatments they compare. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(32), 18948–18950. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2009030117
18.
HeinrichC. J. (2015). The bite of administrative burden: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv034
HunterW. (2019). Identity documents, welfare enhancement, and group empowerment in the global South. Journal of Development Studies, 55(3), 366–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1451637
22.
ImbensG. W.RubinD. B. (2015). Causal inference for statistics, social, and biomedical sciences: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
23.
JacquetV.NiessenC.ReuchampsM. (2022). Sortition, its advocates and its critics: An empirical analysis of citizens’ and MPs’ support for random selection as a democratic reform proposal. International Political Science Review, 43(2), 295–316. URL. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120949958
24.
JensenC.PetersenM. B. (2017). The deservingness heuristic and the politics of health care. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12251
25.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ. L.ThalerR. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741.
KennedyR. P.WaggonerP. D.WardM. M. (2022). Trust in public policy algorithms. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 1132–1148. https://doi.org/10.1086/716283
Kruks-WisnerG. (2018). Claiming the state: Active citizenship and social welfare in rural India. Cambridge University Press.
30.
KrütliP.RosemannT.TörnblomK. Y.SmieszekT. (2016). How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources: Ethical argumentation under scrutiny by health professionals and lay people. PLoS One, 11(7), Article e0159086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159086
31.
KuipersN. (2023). Failing the test: The countervailing attitudinal effects of civil service examinations. American Political Science Review, 117(3), 891–908. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422001149
32.
LasswellH. D. (1936). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Whittlesey House.
33.
LavieS. (2011). Reverse sampling: Holding lotteries to allocate the proceeds of small-claims class actions. George Washington Law Review, 74(4), 1065–1102.
34.
LinW. (2013). Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: Reexamining Freedman’s critique. Annals of Applied Statistics, 7(1), 295–318. https://doi.org/10.1214/12-aoas583
35.
LiuM.ChoyV.ClarkeP.BarnettA.BlakelyT.PomeroyL. (2020). The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: A survey of applicants. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5(1), 3. URL. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z
36.
ManinB. (1997). The principles of representative government. Themes in the Social Sciences Cambridge University Press.
37.
MazarN.ElbaekC. T.MitkidisP. (2023). Experiment aversion does not appear to generalize. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(16), Article e2217551120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217551120
38.
MeyerM. N.HeckP. R.HoltzmanG. S.AndersonS. M.CaiW.WattsD. J.ChabrisC. F. (2019a). Objecting to experiments that compare two unobjectionable policies or treatments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(22), 10723–10728. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820701116
39.
MeyerM. N.HeckP. R.HoltzmanG. S.AndersonS. M.CaiW.WattsD. J.ChabrisC. F. (2019b). “Reply to Mislavsky et al.: Sometimes people really are averse to experiments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(48), 23885–23886. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914509116
40.
MislavskyR.DietvorstB.SimonsohnU. (2020). Critical condition: People don’t dislike a corporate experiment more than they dislike its worst condition. Marketing Science, 39(6), 1092–1104. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1166
41.
MislavskyR.DietvorstB. J.SimonsohnU. (2019). The minimum mean paradox: A mechanical explanation for apparent experiment aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(48), 23883–23884. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912413116
42.
MoynihanD.HerdP.HarveyH. (2014). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu009
PucciR.TavaresR. (2023). Descartando favorecimento político a beneficiários de programas habitacionais: Uma aplicação de Regressão em Descontinuidade. Revista Brasileira de Economia, 77(1), Article e112023. https://doi.org/10.5935/0034-7140.20230011
45.
RichJ. A. J. (2023). Outsourcing bureaucracy to evade accountability: How public servants build shadow state capacity. American Political Science Review, 117(3), 835–850. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000892
46.
RizzoT. (2020). Intermediaries of the state: Bureaucratic transaction costs of claiming welfare in Mexico PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
47.
RosenbaumL. (2020). Facing Covid-19 in Italy—ethics, logistics, and therapeutics on the epidemic’s front line. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(20), 1873–1875. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2005492
SchiffD. S.Jackson SchiffK.PiersonP. (2021). Assessing public value failure in government adoption of artificial intelligence. Public Administration.
50.
SjobergF. M.MellonJ.PeixotoT. (2017). The effect of bureaucratic responsiveness on citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 77(3), 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12697
51.
SnowdonC.GarciaJ. O.ElbourneD. (1997). Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Social Science & Medicine, 45(9), 1337–1355. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00063-4
52.
SolonG.HaiderS. J.WooldridgeJ. M. (2015). What are we weighting for?Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.301
53.
SossJ. (1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585401
54.
SouzaT. (2019). Moradia, Localização e o Programa Habitacional “Minha Casa, Minha Vida” no Município do Rio de Janeiro. Master’s thesis Fundação Getulio Vargas.
55.
StoneP. (2011). The luck of the draw: The role of lotteries in decision making. Oxford University Press.
ten CateO. (2021). Rationales for a lottery among the qualified to select medical trainees: Decades of Dutch experience. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 13(5), 612–615. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-21-00789.1
58.
Van OorschotW. (2002). Targeting welfare: On the functions and dysfunctions of means-testing in social policy. In TownsendP.GordonD. (Eds.), World Poverty: New policies to defeat an old enemy (pp. 171–193): The Policy Press. chapter 7.
59.
VongG. (2020). Weighing up weighted lotteries: Scarcity, overlap cases, and fair inequalities of chance. Ethics, 130(3), 320–348. https://doi.org/10.1086/707212
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
