Benefits by Luck: A Study of Lotteries as a Selection Method for Government Programs

Abstract

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.

Keywords

experimental research latin american politics public administration social welfare programs

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bagg

(2024). “Sortition as anti-corruption: Popular oversight against elite capture.” American Journal of Political Science 68(1):93–105. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12704, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12704

Bar-Hillel

Wagenaar

W. A.

(1991). The perception of randomness. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 12(4), 428–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-8858(91)90029-i

Boyce

J. R.

(1994). Allocation of goods by lottery. Economic Inquiry, 32(3), 457–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1994.tb01343.x

Bueno

N. S.

Nunes

Zucco

(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

Bueno

Nunes

Zucco

(2022). Making the bourgeoisie? Values, voice, and state-provided homeownership. The Journal of Politics, 84(1), 719275. https://doi.org/10.1086/719275

Bueno

Nunes

Zucco

(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

Bueno

N. 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

Campbell

A. L.

(2012). Policy makes mass politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15(1), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-012610-135202

Chagas

A. L. S.

Rocha

G. 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.

10.

Controladoria Geral da União . (2016). Relatório de Avaliação da Execução de Programas de Governo N. 65. https://auditoria.cgu.gov.br/download/9141.pdf

11.

Devereux

Masset

Sabates-Wheeler

Samson

Rivas

A. M.

te Lintelo

(2017). The targeting effectiveness of social transfers. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9(2), 162–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2017.1305981

12.

Dowlen

(2009). “Sorting out sortition: A perspective on the random selection of political officers.” Political Studies 57(2):298–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00746.x, URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00746.x

13.

Elster

(1989). Solomonic judgements: Studies in the limitation of rationality. Cambridge University Press.

14.

Fienberg

S. E.

(1971). Randomization and social affairs: The 1970 draft lottery. Science, 171(3968), 255–261. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3968.255

15.

Frey

B. S.

Oberholzer-Gee

(1996). Fair siting procedures: An empirical analysis of their importance and characteristics. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6688(199622)15:3<353::aid-pam2>3.0.co;2-h

16.

Grover

McClelland

Furnham

(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.

Heck

P. R.

Chabris

C. F.

Watts

D. J.

Meyer

M. 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.

Heinrich

C. 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

19.

Heinrich

C. J.

Camacho

Henderson

S. C.

Hernández

Joshi

(2022). “Consequences of administrative burden for social safety nets that support the healthy development of children.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 41(1):11–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22324, URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pam.22324

20.

Hofstee

W. K. B.

(1990). Allocation by lot: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Social Science Information, 29(4), 745–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901890029004004

21.

Hunter

(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.

Imbens

G. W.

Rubin

D. B.

(2015). Causal inference for statistics, social, and biomedical sciences: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.

23.

Jacquet

Niessen

Reuchamps

(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.

Jensen

Petersen

M. 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.

Kahneman

Knetsch

J. L.

Thaler

(1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741.

26.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3

27.

Kennedy

R. P.

Waggoner

P. D.

Ward

M. M.

(2022). Trust in public policy algorithms. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 1132–1148. https://doi.org/10.1086/716283

28.

Keren

Teigen

K. H.

(2010). Decisions by coin toss: Inappropriate but fair. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500000942

29.

Kruks-Wisner

(2018). Claiming the state: Active citizenship and social welfare in rural India. Cambridge University Press.

30.

Krütli

Rosemann

Törnblom

K. Y.

Smieszek

(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.

Kuipers

(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.

Lasswell

H. D.

(1936). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Whittlesey House.

33.

Lavie

(2011). Reverse sampling: Holding lotteries to allocate the proceeds of small-claims class actions. George Washington Law Review, 74(4), 1065–1102.

34.

Lin

(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.

Liu

Choy

Clarke

Barnett

Blakely

Pomeroy

(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.

Manin

(1997). The principles of representative government. Themes in the Social Sciences Cambridge University Press.

37.

Mazar

Elbaek

C. T.

Mitkidis

(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.

Meyer

M. N.

Heck

P. R.

Holtzman

G. S.

Anderson

S. M.

Cai

Watts

D. J.

Chabris

C. 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.

Meyer

M. N.

Heck

P. R.

Holtzman

G. S.

Anderson

S. M.

Cai

Watts

D. J.

Chabris

C. 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.

Mislavsky

Dietvorst

Simonsohn

(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.

Mislavsky

Dietvorst

B. J.

Simonsohn

(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.

Moynihan

Herd

Harvey

(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

43.

Persad

Wertheimer

Emanuel

E. J.

(2009). Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet, 373(9661), 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60137-9

44.

Pucci

Tavares

(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.

Rich

J. 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.

Rizzo

(2020). Intermediaries of the state: Bureaucratic transaction costs of claiming welfare in Mexico PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

47.

Rosenbaum

(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

48.

Scheunemann

L. P.

White

D. B.

(2011). The ethics and reality of rationing in medicine. Chest, 140(6), 1625–1632. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-0622

49.

Schiff

D. S.

Jackson Schiff

Pierson

(2021). Assessing public value failure in government adoption of artificial intelligence. Public Administration.

50.

Sjoberg

F. M.

Mellon

Peixoto

(2017). The effect of bureaucratic responsiveness on citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 77(3), 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12697

51.

Snowdon

Garcia

J. O.

Elbourne

(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.

Solon

Haider

S. J.

Wooldridge

J. 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.

Soss

(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.

Souza

(2019). Moradia, Localização e o Programa Habitacional “Minha Casa, Minha Vida” no Município do Rio de Janeiro. Master’s thesis Fundação Getulio Vargas.

55.

Stone

(2011). The luck of the draw: The role of lotteries in decision making. Oxford University Press.

56.

Taylor

G. A.

Tsui

K. K. K.

Zhu

(2003). Lottery or waiting-line auction? Journal of Public Economics, 87(5-6), 1313–1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2727(01)00196-7

57.

ten Cate

(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 Oorschot

(2002). Targeting welfare: On the functions and dysfunctions of means-testing in social policy. In Townsend

Gordon

(Eds.), World Poverty: New policies to defeat an old enemy (pp. 171–193): The Policy Press. chapter 7.

59.

Vong

(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.

0.00 MB

1.50 MB