Research

Preferences over economic policies are conditioned by the extent to which individuals understand the world in zero-sum terms. Zero-sum thinking (ZST) is the belief that gains for one individual or group necessarily imply corresponding losses for others. We study the prevalence and triggers for ZST among the majority White British population in the UK, using a survey experiment administered to 3200 individuals, fielded in the run up to the high-stakes UK General Election in July 2024. Our experiment presents respondents with qualitative narratives either about the economic success or disadvantage of specific minority groups. We measure how each narrative shifts perceptions of the economic circumstances of minorities, and of the White British ingroup. By examining treatment effects of the narratives on perceptions of the ingroup, our design provides a novel revealed measure of ZST. Estimating conditional average treatment effects, we document that just over 20% of respondents are revealed as ZSTs from either narrative. However, each narrative reveals a distinct type of zero-sum thinker. Those identified through the narrative of minority success hold similar policy preferences to non-ZSTs. In contrast, those identified through the narrative of minority disadvantage are significantly less supportive of pro-poor policies in general, and policies to reduce ethnic inequalities in particular. We show this is not because ZSTs and non-ZSTs differ in how they perceive the economic outcomes of minorities, opportunities available to minorities, or root causes of minority disadvantage. Our results illustrate how ZST can be triggered by light-touch narratives typical of transient information exposure in daily life, but consequences for redistributive preferences depend on the nature of narratives individuals are exposed to.

Paper | Online Appendix

Citation: Platt, Lucinda, Imran Rasul and Pratyush Tiwari (2026). Revealing Zero-sum Thinking in the United Kingdom.

This paper estimates housing choice differences between households with and without remote workers. Prior to the pandemic, the expenditure share on housing was more than seven percent higher for remote households compared to similar non-remote households in the same commuting zone. Remote households’ higher housing expenditures arise from larger dwellings (more rooms) and a higher price per room. Pre-COVID, households with remote workers were actually located in areas with above-average housing costs, and sorting within-commuting zone to suburban or rural areas was not economically meaningful. Using the pre-COVID distribution of locations, we estimate how much additional pre-tax income would be necessary to compensate non-remote households for extra housing expenses arising from remote work in the absence of geographic mobility, and we compare this compensation to commercial office rents in major metro areas.

Paper

Citation: Stanton, Christopher T., and Pratyush Tiwari (2021). Housing consumption and the Cost of Remote Work. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. w28483