Kon ad, Kai A.; Simon, S en A.
A icle — Published Ve sion
Pa e nalism a i udes and he happiness alue o
undamen al eedoms
Economics o Go e nance
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Sp inge Na u e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Kon ad, Kai A.; Simon, S en A. (2025) : Pa e nalism a i udes and he happiness
alue o undamen al eedoms, Economics o Go e nance, ISSN 1435-8131, Sp inge , Be lin,
Heidelbe g, Vol. 26, Iss. 1, pp. 23-56,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10101-024-00322-y
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/319164
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Vol.:(0123456789)
Economics o Go e nance (2025) 26:23–56
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10101-024-00322-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
Pa e nalism a i udes and hehappiness alue
o undamen al eedoms
KaiA.Kon ad1 · S enA.Simon1
Recei ed: 31 July 2024 / Accep ed: 12 Decembe 2024 / Published online: 4 Feb ua y 2025
© The Au ho (s) 2025
Abs ac
Go e nmen al egula ions and p ohibi ions may e ec i ely educe sel -ha ming
beha io , bu migh also es ic pe sonal eedom igh s. This pape in es iga es
in o indi iduals’ p e e ences o he ade-o be ween being p o ec ed om aking
sel -ha ming ac ions by he s a e, and he desi e o be ee o choose. We in oduce
he Pa e nalism P e e ence Index o measu e his p e e ence. Ou esul s indica e
conside able he e ogenei y in how indi iduals suppo , o objec o, such go e n-
men al p esc ip ions. Mo e impo an ly, we show he impo ance o he pa e nalism
p e e ence in a su ey on li e sa is ac ion du ing he Co id-19 pandemic. We ind a
e e sed ela ionship be ween he p e e ence o pa e nalis ic s a e in e en ions and
he alua ion o pe sonal eedoms. Indi iduals who p e e o ha e a la ge choice
se a he expense o commi ing po en ially sel -ha ming ac ions de i e a highe
alue om pe sonal eedoms in e ms o li e sa is ac ion.
Keywo ds Pa e nalism p e e ences· Pa e nalism P e e ence Index· Go e nmen al
egula ion· Sel -ha ming beha io · Li e sa is ac ion· Ci il libe ies
JEL Classi ica ion H11· H12· C90· K38
We hank B uno S. F ey, Clemens He schko, Ronnie Schöb, Raisa She i , Alois S u ze , Lisa
Winds eige , wo anonymous e iewe s, pa icipan s o he 2021 annual cong ess o he in e na ional
ins i u e o public inance, o he 2022 ZEW Public Finance Con e ence, he ECON ibu e
Resea ch Wo kshop 2022, o he i s and second edi ion o he wo kshop ‘Pa e nalism: O igins and
Consequences’ in Be lin, o wo kshops in Lu he s ad Wi enbe g and Munich, and ou colleagues
a he Max Planck Ins i u e o help ul commen s and sugges ions, and S e an B uckmeye , Magnus
Haselie , and Agnes Schelling o excellen esea ch assis ance.
* S en A. Simon
s [email p o ec ed]
Kai A. Kon ad
kai.kon ad@ ax.mpg.de
1 Max Planck Ins i u e o Tax Law andPublic Finance, Ma s allpla z 1, 80539Munich, Ge many
24
K.A.Kon ad, S.A.Simon
1 In oduc ion
In mos socie ies some choices on indi idual conduc a e made by he ci izens hem-
sel es and some o he choices a e made by he s a e and on behal o he indi idual.
P ominen examples a e legal es ic ions such as he obliga ion o wea sea bel s
in ca s o helme s on mo o cycles, manda o y heal h insu ance o o ced e i emen
sa ings. Bu how much should he s a e in e e e wi h indi iduals’ choices in hei
p esumably bes in e es ? Vice e sa, how much sel -ha ming beha io s should he
s a e ole a e be o e choices a e es ic ed?
In his pape , we s udy ci izens’ a i udes o he ade-o be ween indi idual
choice and he p o ec ion om wel a e- educing and sel -ha ming beha io . We call
his he p e e ence o go e nmen al pa e nalism. We de elop an inno a i e su -
ey ins umen o measu e hese p e e ences, he Pa e nalism P e e ence Index. In
a la ge-scale ep esen a i e su ey expe imen , we documen he he e ogenei y o
pa e nalism p e e ences and demons a e he alidi y and ele ance o ou index by
examining i s ela ionship wi h indi iduals’ alua ions o pe sonal eedoms.
Whe he o no indi idual p e e ences o pa e nalism ma e is o basic epis emo-
logical in e es . Simila o pe sonali y indices common in psychology, p e e ences
on pa e nalism migh be an imp in o cha ac e ai o he indi idual. This is also
o high policy ele ance: Such a ai could de e mine indi idual a i udes o public
go e nance and go e nmen al beha io . Policymake s mus weigh eedom igh s
agains o he basic igh s such as li e and secu i y o pe son when in e e ing wi h
indi iduals’ p i a e in e es s. Many mode n democ acies a ach simila impo ance
o a numbe o igh s. The Uni ed Na ions i mly es ablishes his in he Uni e sal
Decla a ion o Human Righ s, which men ions libe y oge he wi h he igh o li e
and secu i y o pe son in A icle 3. The ideal- ypical e sion o hese undamen al
no ms and alues is also ound in he US Decla a ion o Independence:‘We hold
hese u hs o be sel -e iden , ha all men a e c ea ed equal, ha hey a e endowed
by hei C ea o wi h ce ain unalienable Righ s, ha among hese a e Li e, Libe y
and he pu sui o Happiness.’ The quo e sugges s a connec ion be ween li e, libe y
and happiness in gene al.
We design an indica o ha cap u es indi idual p e e ences owa d go e nmen al
pa e nalism along di e en dimensions o li e. Indi iduals’ a i udes o such s ic
in e en ions migh be based on a numbe o mo i a ions, and migh di e based
on he speci ic a ea and di ec ion in which he go e nmen in e enes. Howe e , all
in e en ions ha e one undamen al ade-o in common. Some indi iduals may
wish o be ee o make decisions abou hei li es, e en i hose decisions in ol e
si ua ions in which hey migh end up choosing sel -ha ming ac ions and making
mis akes. O he s may wish o be p o ec ed by he s a e om such dange s h ough
app op ia e (beha io al) egula ions. Rela ed o he de ini ion by Dwo kin (1972),
we e e o s ic pa e nalis ic in e en ions as policies ha (i) es ic an indi idual’s
25
Pa e nalism a i udes and hehappiness alue o undamen al…
eedom o choice (ii) wi hou (explici ) consen o he espec i e indi idual (iii) p i-
ma ily in o de o make he espec i e indi idual be e o .1
Using la ge-scale su ey e idence om Ge many, we show ha he he e ogenei y
o p e e ences owa d pa e nalis ic go e nmen al in e en ions is la ge and anges
om high app o al o high disapp o al. Then, we use he e en s o he Co id-19
pandemic: In an a emp o con ain he sp ead o he i us, Ge many imposed s ong
cons ain s on pe sonal eedoms. Ou su ey elici s how indi iduals pe cei ed he
cons ain s on pe sonal eedoms in sp ing 2020, and how hese a ec ed hei a ic-
ula ed well-being. To es ablish he ela ionship o he pa e nalism p e e ence and
he alua ion o pe sonal eedom igh s, we es whe he he indi idual pa e nalism
index sco e is co ela ed o he epo ed e ec s o eedom- educing in ec ion con-
ol measu es. Impo an ly, in he con ex o ou s udy, i is no c ucial o he iden-
i ica ion ha he mo i a ion o he es ic ions has been (exclusi ely) pa e nalis ic
in na u e. The hypo hesis we es is ha pa e nalism-skep ic indi iduals alue pe -
sonal eedoms mo e han pa e nalism- iendly indi iduals. A es ic ion o pe sonal
eedoms should lead o la ge educ ion o li e sa is ac ion o pa e nalism-skep ic
indi iduals, independen o he mo i a ion o he es ic ions. Mo eo e , pa e nal-
ism-skep ic indi iduals should a ibu e a la ge pa o hei li e sa is ac ion losses
ochanges in pe sonal eedom. This may be due o a la ge alua ion o pe sonal
eedoms o ins umen al and o in insic easons.
Ou analysis is ela ed o se s o se e al a eas o scien i ic in e es . Fi s , he g ow-
ing li e a u e on pa e nalism. Two pape s explo e pa e nalism p e e ences empi i-
cally bu om a di e en esea ch angle. Pede sen e al. (2014) s udy esponses o
a se o a i udinal ques ions ha pa ially o e lap wi h ou se o ques ions. Thei
esea ch ocuses on whe he indi iduals su e om sel -con ol p oblems and a e
sophis ica ed enough o know abou i . Indi iduals may like go e nmen al choice
es ic ions and p ohibi ions o compensa e and co ec o hei own inabili y o
con ol hemsel es. T ege (2023) explo es he p e e ence o coe ci e and non-
coe ci e pa e nalis ic in e en ions in di e en need domains. She hypo hesizes ha
indi iduals ha e a p e e ence o coe ci e pa e nalis ic policies in he basic needs
domain, and a p e e ence o non-coe ci e pa e nalis ic policies in he highe needs
domain. In con as o us, bo h s udies pu a s onge emphasis on libe a ian pa e -
nalism, which sugges s he go e nmen al use o nudges.2 Mo e impo an ly, we ake
a consequen ialis pe spec i e and show ha he pa e nalism p e e ence is closely
connec ed o an indi idual’s alua ion o pe sonal eedoms.
1 In he empi ical analysis, we somewha elax he hi d elemen and equi e ha a policy is a leas
pa ially mo i a ed o make he indi idual be e o . Mo eo e , ou measu e is no s ic ly bound o his
de ini ion and able o accommoda e di e en elemen s. Fo example, Shi in (2000) eplaces he wel a e
conside a ion in condi ion (iii) by he in e e ence o he pa e nalis wi h he indi idual’s own in e es s o
ma e s ha legi ima ely lie wi hin he indi idual’s con ol. Fo an o e iew o concep ual ma e s, see
Dwo kin (2013).
2 Fo a seminal ou line o he concep see Thale and Suns ein (2003). He wig and Ryall (2020) p o ide
a c i ical discussion and analyze he quali y o nudging ou comes i he ule make ollows an own, non-
bene olen agenda.
26
K.A.Kon ad, S.A.Simon
A na u al nex s ep is he ques ion wha de e mines he p e e ence o pa e nal-
ism.3 The li e a u e discusses a ious easons o go e nmen ally imposed choice
es ic ions, consequences o such es ic ions, and easons o why indi iduals
migh like o dislike such es ic ions. Mill (1859/2014) highligh ed ha he ade-
o be ween indi idual choice and go e nmen al p esc ip ions can be seen as an
issue o p i a e in o ma ion. He sugges ed ha a go e nmen ha assumes decision
powe on indi iduals’ genuinely p i a e ma e s is likely o make w ong decisions.
The ade-o be ween indi iduals’ supe io in o ma ion as ega ds i s idiosync a ic
as es and he go e nmen ’s economies o scale and scope as ega ds sys ema ic
in o ma ion aspec s is he s a ing poin in Kon ad (2024). He cons uc s an in o -
ma ion-asymme ies-based mic o ounda ion o a i udes owa d pa e nalism and
highligh s possible eedback loops be ween poli ical decision making, indi idual
consump ion as es and endogenously o med capabili ies o make good decisions.
The p e e ence o pa e nalism is de e mined by he ins umen al alue o pe sonal
eedom he e. Complemen a y is he li e a u e on he in insic/non-ins umen al al-
ua ion o eedoms. Buchanan (2005) pos ula es ha some indi iduals migh like o
delega e p i a e decisions, i his comes wi h a shi o he bu den o esponsibili y
o he consequences o hese decisions. Rela ed is also Ba ling e al. (2014). They
sugges ha he e is an in insic alue o decision igh s and explo e a me hod o
he measu emen o such decision igh s p e e ences. Also add essing he p e e ence
o decisions on p i a e ma e s, Benz and F ey (2008) and Benz e al. (2004) ake a
mo e s aigh o wa d beha io is app oach: indi iduals migh ha e p ocedu al p e -
e ences. They may a ibu e in insic alue o own decision igh s and migh alue
he way in which choice ou comes a e de e mined. Sen (1988) add essed eedom o
choice as a genuine desi e. He a gues ha , in an app op ia ely b oadened decision
amewo k, a p ocedu e can be in e p e ed as a consump ion i em such ha p oce-
du al p e e ences become pa o s anda d economic decision heo y. These iews
and explana ions o indi iduals’ a i udes on he alloca ion o decision igh s a e
no mu ually exclusi e and migh add o compound. They sugges ha he e migh
be he e ogenei y o p e e ences o pa e nalis ic in e en ions wi hin a gi en popula-
ion. Ou esea ch add esses his he e ogenei y issue. Indeed, indi iduals di e in
hei iews on speci ic decision delega ion issues, and in how hey assess he ade-
o be ween p o ec ion by he go e nmen and he eedom o making own choices.
These di e ences a e no uni o m ac oss issues, bu we ind a common unde ly-
ing ac o ha agg ega es and desc ibes indi iduals’ p e e ences on his ade-o .
Mo eo e , esul s o ou obus ness analysis in di e en socio-economic subg oups
p o ide some en a i e e idence on he ins umen al and in insic componen o he
pa e nalism p e e ence.
3 Complemen a y, Ambuehl, Be nheim and Ocken els (2021) sugges , indi iduals migh ca e abou how
and why he go e nmen should pa e nalize no hemsel es, bu o he s. Redis ibu ion goals, no ma i e
alues, e hical, cul u al and eligious judgemen s, al uis ic mo i es based on own pe cep ions o o he
peoples capabili ies and ue desi es, and ex e nali ies o indi idual beha io can be d i e s o wha an
indi idual hinks is app op ia e o he go e nmen o p esc ibe o o he s.
27
Pa e nalism a i udes and hehappiness alue o undamen al…
Second, he e is a majo li e a u e ha ela es eedom o choice o subjec i e
well-being. By using mainly panel da a, exploi ing a ia ion be ween coun ies
and a ia ion wi hin coun ies o e ime, se e al s udies diagnose a posi i e well-
being impac o eedom. Founda ional con ibu ions a e Ingleha and Klingemann
(2000), and Veenho en (2000). F ey and S u ze (2000, 2002) use indi idual su ey
da a om Swi ze land, and ocus on he ole o democ acy a iables using a ia-
ion be ween can ons. Mo e ecen s udies a e G aa land and Compen (2015), Jack-
son (2017), Nakaza o e al. (2017), and Sp uk and Kešelje ić (2016). Closes o ou
pape is Hadsell and Jones (2020) ha poin s o indi idual app o al o disapp o al
o go e nmen al policy as a possible de e minan o li e sa is ac ion.4 Fo an accoun
o he la ge empi ical li e a u e on he ela ionship be ween economic eedom and
economic pe o mance, see he su ey by Hall and Lawson (2014). Ou esul s show
ha indi iduals a ibu e a la ge sha e o li e sa is ac ion losses o es ic ions in pe -
sonal eedoms du ing he i s wa e o he pandemic in 2020. Howe e , quan i a i e
e ec s should be aken wi h a g ain o sal because we ely on emembe ed li e sa -
is ac ion and sel -assessed e ec s, and es ic ions o pe sonal eedoms ha e been
salien .
Thi d, ou analysis con ibu es o he la ge li e a u e ha iden i ies and measu es
pe sonali y ai s. A me a-s udy by DeNe e and Coope (1998), o ins ance, lis s
137 pe sonali y ai s ha ha e been dis inguished and analyzed. Some o he analy-
ses s udy he co ela ion be ween such ai s and well-being (see, e.g., S eel e al.
2008). Beside he pa e nalism index, we elici wo well-s udied pe sonali y ai s.
The i s one is psychological ‘ eac ance’ (see he ounda ional wo k by B ehm 1966
and a e iew by Mi on and B ehm 2006). The eac ance ai measu es he mo i a-
ional a ousal o he h ea o he elimina ion o one’s eedom and disapp o al o
being lec u ed and pa onized by o he s. The second ai is he ‘locus o con ol’
(Ro e 1990). I can be desc ibed as he ex en o which a pe son belie es ha he
cou se o he li e depends la gely on he own ac ions a he han on he ac ions o
o he s o on chance and luck. We es whe he pa e nalism p e e ences can be seen
as independen o hese exis ing pe sonali y concep s, and whe he pa e nalism p e -
e ences ha e mo e explana o y powe o he alua ion o pe sonal eedoms han
hese wo ela ed pe sonali y ai s.
The emainde o his pape is s uc u ed as ollows. Sec ion2 desc ibes ou su -
ey expe imen . Sec ion3 p esen s desc ip i e esul s on he Pa e nalism P e e ence
Index and analyses i s ela ionship o he alua ion o pe sonal eedoms. Sec ion4
p o ides a discussion o he su ey design and sec ion5 concludes.
4 Thei ques ionnai e gene a es a composi e ‘p o-capi alism’ index o each subjec and compa es his
p e e ence index wi h an es ablished measu e o Economic F eedom in No h Ame ica. They examine
he de ia ion be ween hese measu es as a possible explana o y a iable o li e sa is ac ion. Economic
eedom may ha e impo an ins umen al signi icance, and his migh p o ide a heo y explana ion o
he co ela ions ound.
28
K.A.Kon ad, S.A.Simon
2 The su ey expe imen
2.1 The su ey design
2.1.1 O e iew
The o e a ching esea ch goal is o measu e an indi idual’s p e e ence on he ques-
ion o how a go e nmen al egula ion should in e ene in p e-dominan ly p i a e
ma e s wi h he aim o imp o ing an indi idual’s wel a e, and o wha ex end i
should espec an indi idual’s decision au onomy e en o po en ially bad choices
ins ead. To his end, we de elop a ques ionnai e o 11-i ems, he Pa e nalism P e -
e ence Index. In o de o assess he alidi y o he indica o , we ely on subjec i e
well-being du ing he Co id-19 pandemic. We use he es ic ions o pe sonal ee-
doms o es he hypo hesis ha indi iduals who a e skep ical o pa e nalis ic in e -
en ions alue pe sonal eedoms mo e in e ms o li e sa is ac ion han indi iduals
who app o e such in e en ions.
2.1.2 Implemen a ion
The i s wa e o he su ey es s ou main hypo hesis and ocuses on he imposi ion
o es ic ions. I was conduc ed end o June/beginning o July 2020. The sample
size was 4,411. A second explo a o y wa e ocuses on he phasing-ou o es ic-
ions and was conduc ed in July 2022. I mi o s he 2020 iming o 2022. The sam-
ple size was 1,100. The composi ion o su ey pa icipan s was ep esen a i e o he
Ge man popula ion wi h espec o gende , age (18–69), income, and s a e o esi-
dence. The su ey company espondi adminis e ed he panel, he dis ibu ion o he
su eys, and he pa icipan paymen s. The p ojec ecei ed e hics app o al by he
E hics Commi ee o he Depa men o Economics o LMU Munich (‘A ibu ion o
Happiness Losses,’ da e o app o al 06/09/2020).
Fig. 1 Su ey p ocedu e
29
Pa e nalism a i udes and hehappiness alue o undamen al…
2.1.3 P ocedu e
Figu e1 p o ides an o e iew o he su ey s uc u e. On he i s page, pa icipan s
ecei ed he in o ma ion ha he su ey was independen esea ch by Max Planck
scien is s. A e gi ing consen o pa icipa e and elici a ion o basic socio-economic
cha ac e is ics, subjec s s a e hei emembe ed li e sa is ac ion in ea ly 2020 on a 1
o 10 Like scale.5
;
6 Pa icipan s hen answe ed he Pa e nalism P e e ence Index
as well as he wo es ablished pe sonali y ai s Psychological Reac ance and Locus
o Con ol. Subsequen ly, subjec s we e andomly alloca ed o di e en in o ma ion
ea men s in he i s wa e o he su ey,7 and we e hen asked o hei emembe ed
li e sa is ac ion in Ap il/May 2020 on he same scale as be o e. In he ollowing,
we asked subjec s o a ibu e hei change in emembe ed li e sa is ac ion be ween
Ap il/May and Janua y o changes in six di e en domains o li e. A e elici ing
addi ional ques ions on he pe sonal a ec edness by he Co id-19 pandemic, i con-
cluded wi h an indi idual’s cu en li e sa is ac ion a he ime o he su ey and
u he socio-economic con ols.
2.1.4 Pa e nalism P e e ence Index
The key explana o y a iable is subjec s’ iews on pa e nalis ic go e nmen al in e -
en ions. We measu e hei p e e ence wi h a ques ionnai e ha con ains 11 i ems
on such policies. Subjec s indica e hei opinion on each i em on a 5-poin Like
scale, anging om comple e app o al (1) o comple e disapp o al (5). The ull lis
o i ems is:
1. E e ybody should ha e he igh o do hings ha can ha m himsel /he sel .
2. Beha io s ha endange people hemsel es should be banned. ( e e sed sco e)
3. Nobody knows be e han mysel wha is good o me.
4. The mos impo an ask o he s a e is o p o ec me comp ehensi ely om
dange s o any kind. ( e e sed sco e)
5. I would like o see he s a e elie e us ci izens o mo e asks and esponsibili ies.
( e e sed sco e)
6. The s a e should ban unheal hy ood. ( e e sed sco e)
7. The s a e should consis en ly p o ec us om d ug abuse. ( e e sed sco e)
5 Such scales a e commonly used, and a p ominen example is he Wo ld Value Su ey. Ou ques ion
and scale is adap ed om Q49 in he 2017–2021 Wo ld Values Su ey Wa e 7 (Hae p e e al. 2020)
ha is “All hings conside ed, how sa is ied a e you wi h you li e as a whole hese days? Using his ca d
on which 1 means you a e ‘comple ely dissa is ied’ and 10 means you a e ‘comple ely sa is ied’ whe e
would you pu you sa is ac ion wi h you li e as a whole?” wi h answe s on a Like scale om 1 (‘com-
ple ely dissa is ied’) o 10 (‘comple ely sa is ied’).
6 Diene e al. (2018) p o ide an o e iew on subjec i e well-being measu es. They discuss obus ness
and eliabili y o sel - epo ed measu es and asc ibe good eliabili y o hem. They also elabo a e on he
e ec o po en ial con ounding ac o s. See also he discussion in he su eys by F ey and S u ze (2002),
Helliwell and Pu nam (2004), Cla k e al. (2008), Diene (2012), and Cla k (2018).
7 The in o ma ion ea men s ocused on Co id-19 policies in di e en Eu opean coun ies and a e
o hogonal o he esea ch ques ion in es iga ed he e. These ea men s did no ha e any signi ican
e ec s and we abs ain om discussing hem in wha ollows.
30
K.A.Kon ad, S.A.Simon
8. When and how much I sa e o e i emen I would like o decide en i ely on my
own.
9. E e yone should decide o himsel /he sel whe he he/she will wea a bicycle
helme .
10. The s a e is o e doing i wi h he la ge numbe o building egula ions.
11. Old ehicles wi h low ene gy e iciency should ha e hei ope a ing license
e oked in he medium e m. ( e e sed sco e)
The lis includes i ems aiming a he gene al p e e ence o pa e nalis ically mo i-
a ed in e en ions, and i ems aiming a speci ic policies in he heal h, sa e y, and
pension sa ings domain. Some i ems ocus exclusi ely on he indi idual he sel .
O he i ems also include he egula ion o ex e nali ies o some ex en , o ha e mo e
o a no ma i e cha ac e and e e o he socie y as a whole. They ha e in common
ha policies es ic he eedom o choice wi hou explici consen o he espec i e
indi idual. Howe e , we do no equi e he s ic assump ion ha he in e en ions
ha e been exclusi ely mo i a ed o make he espec i e indi idual be e o , bu
a he ha i is a leas one o he mo i a ions o such policies. Technically, we ely
on ac o analysis o condense he a iance in he esponse pa e n ha is due o he
pa e nalism p e e ence in o an indi idual index sco e. Appendix A.1 p o ides he
echnical de ails on he cons uc ion o he index. We also es he obus ness o ou
indica o by using only a subse o i ems.8
2.1.5 Ou come a iables
The i s ou come a iable is he di e ence in emembe ed li e sa is ac ion be ween
Janua y and Ap il/May o he espec i e yea . Concep ually, his di e ence meas-
u es pa icipan s’ e ospec i e assessmen o how he e en s o he pandemic ha e
a ec ed hei li e sa is ac ion. Fo simplici y, we will e e o he di e ence as hei
change in li e sa is ac ion. In he i s wa e o he su ey (2020), Ge many was
s ill la gely una ec ed by he pandemic in Janua y (Co id-19 s ingency index o
6 poin s by end o Janua y as measu ed on a scale om 0 (no es ic ions) o 100
(s ic es esponse), Ma hieu e al. 2020), bu in Ap il/May, he s ock o in ec ions
was conside able, he numbe o new in ec ions was subs an ial, and es ic ions o
ci il libe ies peaked (Co id-19 s ingency index be ween 60 and 77 poin s). Hence,
he pe iod cap u es d as ic es ic ions o pe sonal eedoms. We discuss ou li e sa -
is ac ion measu es in de ail u he in sec ion4.9
Fo mally, he change in li e sa is ac ion is de ined as he di e ence o emem-
be ed li e sa is ac ion in Ap il/May and emembe ed li e sa is ac ion in Janua y:
Δ=
Li e Sa is ac ion
Ap il/May 2020
− Li e Sa is ac ion
Janua y 2020
8 In pa icula , an es ima ion o he pa e nalism p e e ence based on he subse o gene al i ems (Q7, Q8,
Q10, and Q11) leads o quali a i ely simila esul s compa ed o he ull e sion wi h 11-i ems.
9 In he second wa e o he su ey (2022), es ic ions in Janua y we e s ill widesp ead (Co id-19 s in-
gency index be ween 41 and 64 poin s), bu mos o hem e mina ed in he beginning o Ap il by law
(Co id-19 s ingency index be ween 33 and 18 poin s). Hence, his pe iod cap u es he phasing-ou
o es ic ions. Due o habi ua ion e ec s and p e ious an icipa ion o changes in 2022, i is na u al o
expec s onge e ec s in he i s wa e in 2020.
37
Pa e nalism a i udes and hehappiness alue o undamen al…
he pa e nalism p e e ence. We e e o he ollowing subsec ion o an analysis o
di e en socio-economic subg oups.
Table 1 Mul i a ia e analysis o he con ibu ion o he domain ‘Pe sonal F eedom’ o he change in li e
sa is ac ion
No es: The able p esen s esul s o an o dina y leas squa es (OLS) eg ession. The dependen a iable
a e he poin s a ibu ed o he ca ego y ‘Pe sonal F eedom’ (min: -5; max:
+
5) o explaining he o al
change in li e sa is ac ion be ween Janua y 2020 and Ap il/May 2020. ‘Pa e nalism P e e ence’ e e s o
he indi idual p e e ence o pa e nalis ic go e nmen al in e en ions, ‘Reac ance’ is he indi idual sco e
based on he Hong Psychological Reac ance Scale, and ‘Locus o Con ol’ is he indi idual sco e based
on Ko ale a e al. (2012). Con ol a iables include a dummy o emale pa icipan s (‘Female’), pa -
icipan s‘ age (‘Age’), li e sa is ac ion in Janua y 2020 (‘Li e Sa is ac ion Janua y’), he sum o absolu e
poin s dis ibu ed o ca ego ies (‘Sum o Absolu e Poin s’), and a dummy o pa icipan s wi h low us
in go e nmen (‘No T us Go e nmen ’). The se ‘Basic Con ol Va iables’ con ains he amily s a us,
ca ego ized household income, ca ego ized educa ion, and a dummy o households wi h child en. The
se ‘Fu he Con ol Va iables’ con ains a dummy o sel -employed pa icipan s, a dummy o indi idu-
als in he heal h sec o , a dummy o indi iduals in he educa ion sec o , a dummy o (uni e si y) s u-
den s, a dummy o unemployed indi iduals, a dummy o pensione s, a dummy o mo he s, a dummy
o indi iduals li ing in Eas e n Ge many, and ca ego ized ci y size. The se ‘Sel -Repo ed A ec ed-
ness’ con ains a dummy o a pe cei ed high own heal h h ea , a dummy o pe cei ed high heal h h ea
o close ela i es, a dummy o inancially conce ned indi iduals, a dummy o indi iduals wi h conce n
o a job loss, and a dummy o subjec s epo ing challenges wi h he ca e o child en and elde ly ela-
i es. Robus s anda d e o s clus e ed a he s a e le el in pa en heses, *** p< 0.01, ** p< 0.05, * p< 0.1
Va iables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Pa e nalism P e e ence 0.451*** 0.450*** 0.439*** 0.460*** 0.389*** 0.411***
(0.066) (0.065) (0.065) (0.066) (0.058) (0.056)
Female
−
0.541***
−
0.468***
−
0.466***
−
0.455***
−
0.492***
−
0.452***
(0.075) (0.059) (0.058) (0.062) (0.055) (0.051)
Age
−
0.004
−
0.008*
−
0.008*
−
0.009**
−
0.009**
−
0.008**
(0.003) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)
Locus o Con ol
−
0.063
−
0.052
−
0.069
−
0.096
(0.044) (0.054) (0.056) (0.061)
Reac ance
−
0.055
−
0.022 0.034 0.048
(0.046) (0.037) (0.039) (0.043)
Li e Sa is ac ion Janua y
−
0.022
−
0.029
−
0.032
(0.023) (0.023) (0.023)
Sum o Absolu e Poin s
−
0.027**
−
0.019
−
0.010
(0.012) (0.011) (0.012)
No T us Go e nmen
−
0.799***
−
0.829***
(0.104) (0.102)
Cons an
−
0.653**
−
0.532*
−
0.543*
−
0.144 0.054 0.308
(0.249) (0.297) (0.280) (0.209) (0.211) (0.208)
Basic Con ol Va iables YES YES YES YES YES YES
Fu he Con ol Va iables NO YES YES YES YES YES
Sel -Repo ed A ec edness NO NO NO NO NO YES
Obse a ions 4,411 4,411 4,411 4,411 4,411 4,411
R2
0.043 0.046 0.047 0.052 0.067 0.078
38
K.A.Kon ad, S.A.Simon
The wo baseline speci ica ions in Table1 include a se o basic socio-economic
con ol a iables (1) and a se o u he socio-economic con ol a iables (2). In
bo h speci ica ions, he p e e ence o pa e nalis ic in e en ions is signi ican ly and
posi i ely co ela ed o he con ibu ion o he domain ‘Pe sonal F eedom.’ Indi-
iduals who look a o able (skep ical) a pa e nalis ic go e nmen al in e en ions,
and who ha e consequen ly a posi i e (nega i e) alue o he ‘Pa e nalism P e e -
ence Index,’ a ibu e a less (mo e) nega i e con ibu ion o he domain ‘Pe sonal
F eedom.’ Hence, es ic ions in he pe sonal eedoms a e ela ed o a smalle loss
o li e sa is ac ion o indi iduals who a o pa e nalism han o indi iduals who
dislike pa e nalism. We can eph ase he e ec in e ms o di e ences be ween pa -
icipan s in di e en deciles o he pa e nalism index. The ma ginal e ec o mo ing
om he e y pa e nalism iendly nin h decile o he e y pa e nalism skep ic i s
decile o he Pa e nalism P e e ence Index is a di e ence o 1.03 poin s alloca ed
o he domain ‘Pe sonal F eedom,’ and om mo ing om he medium pa e nalism
iendly hi d qua ile o he medium pa e nalism skep ic i s qua ile is a di e ence
o 0.51 poin s.
This co ela ion is obus o a numbe o obus ness speci ica ions. Speci ica-
ion (3) employs he wo pe sonali y ai s ‘Psychological Reac ance’ and ‘Locus
o Con ol’ as u he con ol a iables. The psychological esis ance o (a h ea
o) he elimina ion o eedoms and he belie ha he cou se o one’s li e la gely
depends on one’s own ac ions migh be ela ed o he pe cei ed loss in li e sa is ac-
ion due o es ic ions in pe sonal eedoms. Howe e , we ind no e idence o a
signi ican co ela ion o hese ai s o he con ibu ion o pe sonal eedoms. Mo e
impo an ly, he coe icien on he pa e nalism p e e ence emains quali a i ely and
quan i a i ely una ec ed by he inclusion o hese pe sonali y ai s. This is u he
e idence ha he p e e ence o go e nmen al pa e nalism is a di e en concep as
compa ed o he wo pe sonali y ai s de eloped in psychology. Concep ually i
measu es a ‘social ai ’ a he han a ‘psychological ai :’ he ela ionship be ween
he indi idual and a pa e nalis ic S a e, and his measu e u ns ou o be highly
ele an .
The inal se o obus ness speci ica ions con ols o he baseline le el o li e
sa is ac ion in Janua y 2020 and he sum o absolu e poin s a ibu ed o di e en
domains o li e (speci ica ion (4) o (6)). The o me a iable akes in o accoun ha
hose wi h g ea e le els o emembe ed p e-pandemic li e sa is ac ion may ha e
a la ge scope o pandemic e ec s on di e en domains o li e in gene al, while
he la e a iable con ols o a po en ial co ela ion be ween pa e nalism p e e -
ences and an indi idual’s exp essi eness in alloca ing poin s o domains. This p o-
ec s agains he explana ion ha pa e nalism-skep ic indi iduals gene ally alloca e
mo e poin s o di e en domains wi hou ac ually aluing pe sonal eedoms mo e
han hei pa e nalism- iendly coun e pa s. Mo eo e , speci ica ion (5) includes a
dummy a iable o indi iduals wi h low us in go e nmen , which may cap u e a
gene al scep icism o go e nmen al in e en ions o any so (bo h o pa e nalis ic
and non-pa e nalis ic na u e). Speci ica ion (6) adds a se o con ol a iables ha
cap u e sel - epo ed conce n and subjec i e a ec edness by he Co id-pandemic
along di e en dimensions. These con ol a iables migh all be co ela ed o he
pe cei ed loss in li e sa is ac ion due o es ic ions in pe sonal eedoms. Howe e ,
39
Pa e nalism a i udes and hehappiness alue o undamen al…
he eason o including hese a iables is solely o es he obus ness o he p edic-
i e powe o he pa e nalism p e e ence. Reg ession esul s indica e ha he esul s
a e obus o he addi ional checks. The coe icien on he pa e nalism p e e ence is
quali a i ely and quan i a i ely una ec ed.
Resul 2 Pa e nalism p e e ences a e co ela ed o an indi idual’s alua ion o pe -
sonal eedoms: The smalle he p e e ence o pa e nalism, he la ge he alua ion
o pe sonal eedoms.
3.2.3 Robus ness esul s
Finally, we p esen s h ee addi ional obus ness checks. Fi s , pa e nalism-skep ic
subjec s may no alue pe sonal eedoms mo e han hei pa e nalism- iendly
coun e pa s, bu may ha e expe ienced a la ge loss in emembe ed li e sa is ac ion
in gene al. In u n, hey may ha e a ibu ed mo e poin s o he di e en domains
o li e. Figu e5 (le ) shows poin s a ibu ed o pe sonal eedoms condi ional on
he change in emembe ed li e sa is ac ion. The solid black line e e s o subjec s
wi h a pa e nalism p e e ence below he pa icipan wi h he median p e e ence, he
g ay dashed lines o hose subjec s wi h a p e e ence abo e. Fo bo h g oups, he
la ge he loss in li e sa is ac ion, he mo e nega i e poin s a e a ibu ed o pe sonal
eedoms. Impo an ly, holding he le el o he change in emembe ed li e sa is ac-
ion cons an , he mo e pa e nalism-skep ic subjec s a ibu e mo e nega i e poin s
Fig. 5 Robus ness esul s o he alua ion o pe sonal eedoms. The le igu e shows poin s a ibu ed
o pe sonal eedoms (min: -5 poin s, max: +5 poin s) condi ional on he epo ed change in li e sa is ac-
ion (min: -10 poin s, max: +10 poin s). The igh igu e shows poin s a ibu ed o pe sonal eedoms
condi ional on sel - epo ed a ec edness du ing he i s wa e o he pandemic (min: -10 poin s, max:
+10 poin s). Indi iduals o he le eel mo e a ec ed by he es ic ions, indi iduals o he igh eel
mo e a ec ed by he heal h h ea . In bo h igu es, he dashed g ay line e e s o indi iduals wi h a pa e -
nalism p e e ence abo e he median pa icipan , and solid black line e e s o indi iduals wi h a pa e nal-
ism p e e ence below he median pa icipan . E o ba s indica e mean o espec i e g oup ± s anda d
e o s
40
K.A.Kon ad, S.A.Simon
o pe sonal eedoms. Hence, gi en he change in emembe ed li e sa is ac ion, a
la ge pa o he change in li e sa is ac ion is due o es ic ions in pe sonal ee-
doms as compa ed o mo e pa e nalism- iendly subjec s wi h he same change in
li e sa is ac ion.
Second, we con ol o he subjec i e binding o es ic ions. Li e sa is ac ion
losses along pe sonal eedoms migh be pa icula ly salien o subjec s who el
mo e cons ained by es ic ions han by he heal h h ea . In u n, hey migh a ib-
u e mo e nega i e poin s o changes in pe sonal eedoms. A he same ime, hey
may ha e he pe cep ion ha he go e nmen has aken away consump ion possibili-
ies om hem. In u n, hey may indica e a gene ally mo e skep ical a i ude owa d
any go e nmen al in e en ion. Figu e 5 ( igh ) displays poin s a ibu ed o pe -
sonal eedoms condi ional on subjec i ely assessed binding o es ic ions.12 Those
indi iduals who el mo e cons ained by es ic ions (le side) a ibu e on a e age
mo e nega i e poin s o pe sonal eedoms han subjec s who el mo e cons ained
by he heal h isks ( igh side)(Wilcoxon-Mann–Whi ney es :
p<0.01
). Howe e ,
e en condi ional on he pe cei ed binding o es ic ions, pa e nalism-skep ic indi-
iduals (solid black line) a ibu e mo e nega i e poin s o pe sonal eedoms han
he pa e nalism- iendly hal (g ay dashed line) does. This holds bo h o indi idu-
als who el mo e cons ained by he es ic ions and o hose who el mo e con-
s ained by he heal h h ea (Wilcoxon-Mann–Whi ney es :
p<0.01
, espec i ely).
Hence, i seems unlikely ha he ela ion be ween he alua ion o pe sonal ee-
doms and he p e e ence o pa e nalism is de e mined by he indi idual saliency o
es ic ions alone.
Thi d, we in es iga e he alua ion o pe sonal eedoms in di e en subg oups
(pa en al s a us, age coho , income le el, employmen s a us) and es he explo a-
o y powe o pa e nalism p e e ences in hese g oups. Based on socio-economic
cha ac e is ics, he p e-pandemic ins umen al alue o pe sonal eedoms may ha e
di e ed. Fo example, consump ion oppo uni ies o pe sonal eedoms migh be
lowe o pa en s. I pa e nalism p e e ences and he p e-pandemic consump ion
alue o pe sonal eedoms a e co ela ed, pa e nalism p e e ences would mos ly
e lec di e ences in he ins umen al alue o pe sonal eedoms. In his case, di -
e ences wi hin subg oups along he pa e nalism p e e ence should be small and
agg ega e indings migh be d i en by speci ic subg oups. In con as , i he pa e -
nalism p e e ence is no only co-de e mined by he o gone consump ion oppo u-
ni ies o pe sonal eedoms, he pa e nalism p e e ence should be p edic i e o he
alua ion o pe sonal eedoms also wi hin subg oups. The la e is wha we obse e
in he da a. While he e a e p onounced di e ences be ween subg oups in he loss
in li e sa is ac ion and poin s a ibu ed o pe sonal eedoms,13 he pa e nalism
12 A e he a ibu ion o he change in li e sa is ac ion o di e en domains o li e, subjec s epo ed he
pe cei ed pe sonal a ec edness/con inemen (i) by he heal h h ea o he Co id-19 (abs ac ing om
es ic ions) and (ii) by measu es/ es ic ions implemen ed agains he sp ead o he i us (abs ac ing
om he heal h h ea ). Bo h a iables anged om 1 (‘no cons ained a all’) o 10 (‘ e y cons ained’).
Subjec s a e o de ed acco ding o he di e ence in bo h scales.
13 The g ea es loss in li e sa is ac ion is epo ed by mo he s (
−
1.39 poin s), and he leas loss is
epo ed by unemployed (
−
0.59 poin s). The mos nega i e poin s a e a ibu ed o pe sonal eedoms by
s uden s (
−
1.44 poin s), he leas nega i e poin s by unemployed (
−
1.10 poin s).
41
Pa e nalism a i udes and hehappiness alue o undamen al…
p e e ence (as de e mined in he comple e popula ion) is p edic i e o he alua ion
o pe sonal eedoms wi hin all subg oups conside ed. By illus a ion, mo he s wi h
a pa e nalism p e e ence below he median pa icipan a ibu e signi ican ly mo e
nega i e poin s o pe sonal eedoms han mo he s wi h a pa e nalism p e e ence
abo e he median pa icipan (Wilcoxon-Mann–Whi ney es :
−
1.79 poin s s.
−
0.89
poin s,
N=302
s.
N=372
,
p<0.01
). The same holds o a he s (
−
1.29 poin s
s
−
0.23 poin s,
N=207
s.
N=288
,
p<0.01
), young people (
−
1.69 poin s s.
−
0.96 poin s,
N=453
s.
N=477
,
p<0.01
), e i ed people (
−
1.43 poin s s.
−
0.92 poin s,
N=311
s.
N=333
,
p=0.01
), people wi h low income (
−
1.61 poin s
s.
−
0.84 poin s,
N=479
s.
N=590
,
p<0.01
), people wi h high income (
−
1.64
poin s s.
−
0.82 poin s,
N=700
s.
N=599
,
p<0.01
), and unemployed indi idu-
als (
−
1.54 poin s s.
−
0.81 poin s,
N=68
s.
N=106
,
p=0.05
). These consis en
wi hin-subg oup di e ences migh be en a i e e idence o an in insic componen
o pa e nalism p e e ences. Speci ically, pa e nalism-skep ic indi iduals may ha e
a alua ion o pe sonal eedoms beyond i s me e consump ion alue. Howe e , he
inding may also come om emaining di e ences in he ins umen al alue o pe -
sonal eedoms in he espec i e subg oups.
3.3 Second wa e: explo a o y analysis o li ed es ic ions
The second wa e o he su ey in July 2022 add essed he ela ionship be ween he
phasing-ou o es ic ions o pe sonal eedoms and he pa e nalism p e e ence.
The iming o e en s in he second wa e is a mi o image o he e en s o he i s
wa e. The beginning o 2022 was s ill cha ac e ized by subs an ial es ic ions while
es ic ions we e phased ou in Ap il/May 2022. The analysis o he second wa e is
explo a o y in na u e and we did no pos ula e a hypo hesis simila o he i s wa e.
Be ween Janua y 2022 and Ap il/May 2022, emembe ed li e sa is ac ion
changed only by 0.04 poin s, on a e age. This migh e lec ha changes in he la e
s age o he pandemic we e p edic able, mo e g adual, and may ha e aken mo e
ime o a ec li e sa is ac ion, whe eas he i s wa e o he Co id-19 pandemic
changed li e ci cums ances d as ically, immedia ely, and unexpec edly. The domain
‘Pe sonal F eedom’ s ill con ibu ed mos o he inc ease in li e sa is ac ion, bu
accoun ed only o 34 pe cen o o al posi i e poin s a ibu ed o di e en domains
o li e. Mo eo e , he e is an asymme y in he second wa e along he pa e nalism
dimension. Remembe ed li e sa is ac ion o pa e nalism-skep ic and pa e nalism-
iendly subjec s did no di e in Janua y 2020 (7.26 s. 7.21 poin s, Wilcoxon-
Mann–Whi ney es :
p=0.57
). In con as , emembe ed li e sa is ac ion in Janua y
2022 was di e en in bo h g oups (6.45 s. 6.82 poin s, Wilcoxon-Mann–Whi ney
es :
p=0.01
).
Figu e6 illus a es he e ec on a ge measu es o he second wa e o he su ey
in 2022. Simila o Fig.4 (le ),Fig.6 (le ) displays esul s o a median di ision
o ou come a iables along he p e e ence o pa e nalism. The change in li e sa -
is ac ion is small and no signi ican ly di e en in bo h g oups (
−
0.03 e sus 0.11,
Wilcoxon-Mann–Whi ney es :
p=0.42
). Opposi e o he esul s o he imposi-
ion o es ic ions, he pa e nalism- iendly hal eac s s onge o he phasing-ou
42
K.A.Kon ad, S.A.Simon
o es ic ions along he dimension o pe sonal eedoms. Pa e nalism- iendly
indi iduals a ibu e a la ge pa o hei inc ease in li e sa is ac ion o pe sonal
eedoms han he pa e nalism-skep ic indi idual do (0.62 e sus 1.18 poin s, Wil-
coxon-Mann–Whi ney es :
p<0.01
). No e, howe e , ha a compa ison o poin s
a ibu ed o pe sonal eedoms be ween bo h wa es is no meaning ul due o he
small change o li e sa is ac ion in he second wa e. Poin s a ibu ed in he second
wa e co espond o a much smalle e ec in e ms o li e sa is ac ion as compa ed o
poin s a ibu ed in he i s wa e.
Figu e6 ( igh ) p esen s he e ec on a ge a iables along deciles o he p e e -
ence o pa e nalism. Opposi e o he i s wa e, he e is no mono onic ela ionship
be ween he pa e nalism p e e ence and he a ge a iables. The change in li e sa -
is ac ion luc ua es a ound 0 when mo ing om he mos pa e nalism-skep ic i s
decile o he leas pa e nalism-skep ic en h decile. Mo eo e , he e ec o pe sonal
eedoms o he change in li e sa is ac ion is posi i e bu s able o pa e nalism-
skep ic indi iduals and hose close o he median p e e ence ( i s decile o se en h
decile o pa e nalism p e e ence). In con as , he pa e nalism- iendly indi iduals
(eigh h decile o en h decile) a ibu e mo e poin s o pe sonal eedoms.
The asymme y along he pa e nalism p e e ence compa ed o he i s wa e may
allow o wo in e p e a ions. Fi s , e ec s o li ed es ic ions migh ake longe
o ma e ialize o pa e nalism-skep ic subjec s. Second, pa e nalism-skep ic indi-
iduals migh a ibu e no only an ins umen al alue o pe sonal eedoms bu may
a he alue pe sonal eedoms in insically. In u n, he knowledge and expe ience
ha pe sonal eedoms can be emo ed migh lead o a pe sis en e ec e en when
eedoms a e es o ed.
Fig. 6 The e ec o pa e nalism p e e ences on he wo key ou come a iables in 2022. The le igu e
shows he change in li e sa is ac ion (ligh g ay) and he poin s a ibu ed o he domain ‘Pe sonal F ee-
dom’ (da k g ay) by di ision along he median p e e ence o pa e nalism. Fo each compa ison, he le
( igh ) ba e e s o he subg oup ha is mo e skep ical (welcoming) o pa e nalis ic in e en ions han
he median pa icipan . E o ba s indica e mean ± s anda d e o s. The igh igu e shows he change
in li e sa is ac ion (uppe igu e) and he poin s a ibu ed o pe sonal eedoms (lowe igu e) along he
deciles o he pa e nalism p e e ence
43
Pa e nalism a i udes and hehappiness alue o undamen al…
4 Discussion o hesu ey design
Two poin s a e no ewo hy on ou su ey design and equi e a discussion. Fi s , we
ely on emembe ed ins ead o ac ual li e sa is ac ion. A conside able li e a u e dis-
cusses emembe ed u ili y e sus expe ienced/ac ual u ili y (see, e.g., Kahneman
and Riis, 2005; Kahnemann, 2011; Mogilne and No on, 2019). Acknowledging he
di e ences be ween he wo concep s, we compa e s udies ha measu ed ac ual li e
sa is ac ion du ing he i s wa e o he Co id-19 pandemic o emembe ed alues
in ou s udy. Closes o us, Winds eige e al. (2022) used sample cha ac e is ics and
elici a ion me hods simila o ou s. They assessed ac ual alues o li e sa is ac ion
o Ap il/May 2020 and emembe ed alues o Janua y 2020. We do no ind any
majo di e ence be ween hei ac ual and ou emembe ed alue o li e sa is ac ion
o Ap il/May 2020 (6.15 s. 6.14, Wilcoxon-Mann–Whi ney es :
p=0.87
). We
also ind only a mino di e ence be ween he emembe ed alue o Janua y 2020
in bo h s udies (7.31 s. 7.23, Wilcoxon-Mann–Whi ney es :
p=0.09
). Fu he
e idence comes om Bi mann (2022), who uses ac ual li e sa is ac ion da a om
he Ge man Na ional Educa ional Panel S udy (Bloss eld e al. 2011). The p e-pan-
demic- o-pandemic d op in li e sa is ac ion be ween 2018/2019 and May/June 2020
by an a e age o 1.00 poin s (on a scale 0-10) is quali a i ely and quan i a i ely
compa able o he d op by 1.10 poin s (on a scale 1-10) in ou s udy. Schmid ke
e al. (2024) con i m he quali a i e educ ion in li e sa is ac ion in an e en s udy
wi h somewha smalle quan i a i e e ec s. Finally, he d op in li e sa is ac ion om
7.14 poin s in 2019 o 6.74 poin s in 2020 as elici ed in he Glücksa las (SKL Glück-
sa las 2022) is also quali a i ely in line wi h ou da a, and we ind simila esul s
ega ding mos a ec ed subg oups (pa en s and pa icula mo he s). In summa y,
s udies using ac ual/cu en li e sa is ac ion ind quali a i ely simila esul s, while
di e ences in he absolu e size o he e ec s a e no o majo in e es o ou s udy.
We only ocus on whe he a esponden ’s pa e nalism p e e ences cause a quali a i e
di e ence in he size o he d op in li e sa is ac ion.
Second, he Pa e nalism P e e ence Index does no include ques ions di ec ly
ela ed o he Co id-19 pandemic. The iming o he ques ionnai e a he beginning
o he su ey makes i also unlikely ha subjec s we e p imed owa d he pandemic
es ic ions be o e. This should limi po en ial e e se e ec s o he de elopmen s
du ing he pandemic on he p e e ence o pa e nalism. Mo eo e , i should also limi
he conce n ha pa icipan s epo a la ge loss in li e sa is ac ion/a ibu e mo e
nega i e poin s o pe sonal eedoms and s a e a skep ical a i ude owa d pa e nal-
is ic go e nmen al in e en ion in o de o exp ess a consis en disapp o al o he
Co id-19 es ic ions. E en hough es ic ions ha e been mo e salien in 2020, we
do no ind a di e ence in he pa e nalism p e e ence be ween he i s wa e o he
su ey in 2020 and he second wa e o he su ey in 2022 (sec ion3.1). This is
in line wi h Scha z and Pe e sen (2023), who show ha a i udes owa d go e n-
men al p ohibi ions in he p i a e domain emain s able o he pe iod 2014 – 2022,
including he pe iod be o e and he pe iod du ing he Co id-19 pandemic. Finally,
con olling o he pe cei ed subjec i e binding o es ic ions in ou obus ness
analysis (sec ion3.2.3) and con olling o indi iduals’ a i ude owa d he Co id-19
44
K.A.Kon ad, S.A.Simon
es ic ions wi h one o ou con ol ques ions does no change ou key esul on he
ela ionship o he pa e nalism p e e ence o he alua ion o pe sonal eedoms.
Hence, i seems unlikely ha he p e e ence o pa e nalis ic in e en ion changed
as a eac ion o he pandemic and ela ed go e nmen al ac ions o ha esul s a e
d i en by subjec s wishing o exp ess a consis en disapp o al o es ic ions.
5 Conclusion
In his pape , we de elop a new index ha measu es he p e e ence o go e nmen-
al laws and egula ions o ban po en ially ad e se o sel -ha ming beha io in he
p i a e domain. The index add esses he deg ee o which an indi idual is willing
o delega e pe sonal decisions o he go e nmen ha she could also e y well ake
o he sel . Examples o pas in e en ions may include egula ions o educe a ic
casual ies, such as he obliga ion o wea sea bel s. We ind ha he index has con-
side able explana o y powe o how indi iduals assessed he eedom- es ic ing
measu es ha he go e nmen ook o con ain he pandemic. We show ha he cos s
o es ic ions o pe sonal eedoms du ing he ea ly mon hs o he pandemic depend
on indi iduals’ gene al p e e ences o go e nmen al pa e nalism. This speaks o he
la ge ques ion whe he pa e nalism p e e ences a e use ul as an explana o y a i-
able o he impac o go e nmen al beha io .
Appendix A.1 Cons uc ion o indices
Appendix A.1 p o ides addi ional esul s on he cons uc ion o he Pa e nalism
P e e ence Index, psychological eac ance and he locus o con ol. As discussed in
sec ion2, bo h psychological eac ance and he locus o con ol ha e some concep-
ually ela ed elemen s o he Pa e nalism P e e ence Index. Hence, we elic ed bo h
concep s o es hei ela ion o he Pa e nalism P e e ence Index. Mo oe e , we es
hei co ela ion o an indi idual’s alua ion o pe sonal eedoms.
Cons uc ion o hepa e nalism p e e ence index
Fo he Pa e nalism P e e ence Index, we compose a se o 11 s a emen s (see sec-
ion2). We use he esponden s’ ag eemen o disag eemen wi h hese s a emen s
o measu e he posi ion o he indi idual pa icipan wi h ega d o he ade-o
be ween he desi e o choose and decide wha isks o ake, and he desi e o be
p o ec ed by he s a e om dange s a ising om one’s own beha io . Fo each s a e-
men , indi iduals ha e o indica e whe he hey ully ag ee (sco e = 1), a he ag ee
(sco e = 2), nei he ag ee no disag ee (sco e = 3), a he disag ee (sco e = 4), o
ully disag ee (sco e = 5). The sco e o e e sed i ems is con e ed by six minus he
o iginal sco e. Indi idual answe s a e condensed in o a single index alue by ac o
analysis. Fo obus ness, we also compu e an index alue based on he agg ega e
sco e o all i ems. Bo h index alues a e highly co ela ed (
co =0.93
). The esul
45
Pa e nalism a i udes and hehappiness alue o undamen al…
ega ding he cons uc ion o he Pa e nalism P e e ence Index e e o pooled da a
om he i s wa e and second wa e, bu a e obus o he anaylsis o bo h wa es
independen ly.
Table 2 shows he esul s o he ac o analysis o he Pa e nalism P e e ence
Index. We ind one ac o wi h an eigen alue g ea e han 1 and e ain his ac o
acco ding o he eigen alue c i e ion. While ac o loadings on all i ems ha e he
expec ed sign, we ind six i ems wi h a loading o 0.5 o highe . The common ac o
explains a somewha lowe sha e o he a iance o i em 3 (knowledge o hings ha
a e good o onesel ), i em 8 (choice o pension sa ings), and i em 10 (building eg-
ula ions). C onbach’s alpha is a 0.70, and i e a i e elimina ion o i ems wi h ac o
loadings below 0.5 would only lead o a ma ginal inc ease o he scale eliabili y o
0.76. We hen use he es ima ed weigh s o he s a emen s o his ac o o calcula e
each indi idual index sco es.
Cons uc ion o he eac ance index
In ou su ey, we used he 14-i em e sion by Hong and Page (1989) o elici
psychological eac ance. We include his measu e o wo easons. Fi s , indi-
iduals who eac s ongly on ( he h ea o ) he elimina ion o hei eedom in
gene al migh also be pa icula skep ical owa d eedom- es ic ing pa e nalis ic
in e en ions. Secondly, indi iduals sco ing high on psychological eac ance may
ha e su e ed pa icula ly om he es ic ions o pe sonal eedoms in he cou se
o he Co id-19 pandemic.
Table3 shows esul s o he ac o analysis o he eac ance index. We ind
one ac o wi h an eigen alue conside ably g ea e han 1, and one ac o wi h
an eigen alue close o 1. We e ain only one ac o acco ding o he p e ious
Table 2 Eigen alues (uppe pa ) and ac o loadings (lowe pa ) o he Pa e nalism P e e ence Index
Fac o 1 Fac o 2 Fac o 3 Fac o 4 Fac o 5
Eigen alues 2.32578 0.95673 0.27883 0.07647 0.05746
Fac o 1 Fac o 2 Fac o 3 Fac o 4 Fac o 5
I em 1 0.5674 0.2362
−
0.2224
−
0.0928
−
0.0250
I em 2 0.7499
−
0.0433
−
0.0278
−
0.0808
−
0.0441
I em 3 0.1395 0.5082 0.1061
−
0.0714
−
0.0343
I em 4 0.6014
−
0.2533 0.0102
−
0.0108 0.1289
I em 5 0.5060
−
0.1827 0.2448
−
0.0665 0.0838
I em 6 0.5167
−
0.1019 0.0752 0.0846
−
0.1282
I em 7 0.5567
−
0.1501
−
0.1523 0.0643
−
0.0362
I em 8 0.0220 0.4599 0.1553
−
0.0693
−
0.0047
I em 9 0.2599 0.3589
−
0.1899 0.0837 0.0600
I em 10 0.1727 0.4001 0.0002 0.1199 0.0871
I em 11 0.3599 0.1001 0.2613 0.1192
−
0.0335
46
K.A.Kon ad, S.A.Simon
li e a u e (e.g. Winds eige e al. 2022). Fac o loadings on all i ems ha e he
expec ed sign and ange be ween 0.45 and 0.65, and C onbach’s alpha is 0.87.
Cons uc ion o helocus o con ol
To measu e he locus o con ol, we ely on he ou -i em e sion by Ko ale a
e al. (2012). The in ui ion o include his measu e is ha he deg ee o which
pa icipan s pe cei e he cou se o hei li e o be an ou come o hei own ac ions
and choices migh be co ela ed o he p e e ence o pa e nalis ic go e nmen-
al in e en ions. Mo e e , pa icipan s wi h a high locus o con ol migh ha e
had a la ge educ ion in li e sa is ac ion due o he es ic ions o hei pe sonal
eedoms.
Table4 shows he esul s o he ac o analysis o he locus o con ol. We ind
one ac o wi h an eigen alue g ea e han 1 and e ain his ac o acco ding o he
eigen alue c i e ion. Fac o loadings on all i ems ha e he expec ed sign and ange
be ween 0.45 and 0.60, and C onbach’s alpha is a 0.64.
E ec o psychological eac ance andlocus o con ol onkey a iables
Finally, we es he p edic i e ou come o eac ance and he locus o con ol on
he wo key ou come a iables, he change in emembe ed li e sa is ac ion and he
poin s a ibu ed o pe sonal eedoms.
Table 3 Eigen alues (uppe pa ) and ac o loadings (lowe pa ) o Reac ance Index
Fac o 1 Fac o 2 Fac o 3 Fac o 4 Fac o 5 Fac o 6
Eigen alues 4.5784 1.0484 0.1882 0.1512 0.0595 0.0210
Fac o 1 Fac o 2 Fac o 3 Fac o 4 Fac o 5 Fac o 6
I em 1 0.6557
−
0.2176 0.1674 0.0134
−
0.0023 0.0116
I em 2 0.4990
−
0.2367 0.1110 0.0666
−
0.0088 0.0738
I em 3 0.6336
−
0.4342 0.0984
−
0.0160
−
0.0152 0.0119
I em 4 0.5114 0.3246 0.1142 0.0493
−
0.0292 0.0093
I em 5 0.5696
−
0.0849
−
0.1836 0.1782 0.0690
−
0.0003
I em 6 0.5667 0.3727 0.1274 0.1228 0.0140
−
0.0116
I em 7 0.4815 0.2502
−
0.1183 0.1801
−
0.0396 0.0094
I em 8 0.4928 0.2890 0.0868
−
0.0413
−
0.0274
−
0.0590
I em 9 0.6589
−
0.3848
−
0.1320 0.0064 0.0581
−
0.0307
I em 10 0.5378 0.1968 0.0431
−
0.1140 0.1450
−
0.0274
I em 11 0.5590 0.2221
−
0.0671
−
0.1482 0.0799 0.0562
I em 12 0.5680 0.2511
−
0.1595
−
0.0928
−
0.0977 0.0198
I em 13 0.6445
−
0.0554
−
0.0665
−
0.1372
−
0.0825 0.0183
I em 14 0.5851
−
0.2380
−
0.0075
−
0.0230
−
0.0623
−
0.0768
53
Pa e nalism a i udes and hehappiness alue o undamen al…
li e sa is ac ion. Figu e10 ( igh ) e e s o he second wa e o he su ey in 2022.
A compa ison o Fig. 9 shows ha he s uc u ed es ima ion app oach iden i ies
changes o pe sonal eedoms ( he phasing-ou o es ic ions) as he only domain
o li e wi h a ele an in luence on li e sa is ac ion. Howe e , in compa ison o he
imposi ion o es ic ions, he e ec o he phasing-ou o es ic ions has a much
smalle e ec .
E ec o pa e nalism p e e ence onkey ou come a iables
Finally, Fig.11 displays esul s o a median di ision o ou come a iables along
he p e e ence o pa e nalism. Fo he i s wa e o he su ey in 2020, esul s a e
line wi h he main analysis in sec ion3.2.1. Pa icipan s wi h a pa e nalism p e e -
ence below he median, i.e., hose who end o be nega i e owa d he go e nmen al
in e en ions, ha e a mo e nega i e con ibu ion o es ic ions o pe sonal eedoms
o hei o al change in li e sa is ac ion han he pa e nalism- iendly hal has (
−
0.53
e sus
−
0.35 poin s, Wilcoxon-Mann–Whi ney es :
p<0.01
). Fo he second wa e
o he su ey in 2022, esul s o he s uc u ed es ima ion app oach p o ide a some-
wha di e en esul along he pa e nalism p e e ence as compa ed o uns uc u ed
app oach wi h poin s a ibu ed o pe sonal eedom (see sec ion3.3). The e is no
signi ican di e ence in he con ibu ion o pe sonal eedoms o he change in li e
sa is ac ion be ween pa e nalism-skep ic indi iduals and pa e nalism- iendly indi-
iduals (0.15 e sus
−
0.09 poin s, Wilcoxon-Mann–Whi ney es :
p=0.88
). This
is no su p ising because he s uc u ed es ima ion app oach accoun s o he small
change in li e sa is ac ion in bo h g oups and co ec s o an indi idual’s esponsi e-
ness when alloca ing poin s o he di e en domains o li e.
Fig. 10 Con ibu ion o changes o di e en domains o li e o he o al change in emembe ed li e sa is-
ac ion in uni s o li e sa is ac ion. Figu e shows he con ibu ion o di e en domains o li e o he o al
change in li e sa is ac ion in uni s o li e sa is ac ion. Le igu e e e s o he i s wa e o he su ey in
2020 (compa e o Fig.8) and igh igu e e e s o he second wa e o he su ey in 2022 (compa e o
Fig.9). E o ba s indica e mean ± s anda d e o s
54
K.A.Kon ad, S.A.Simon
Acknowledgemen s We hank B uno S. F ey, Clemens He schko, Ronnie Schöb, Raisa She i , Alois
S u ze , Lisa Winds eige , wo anonymous e iewe s, pa icipan s o he 2021 annual cong ess o he
in e na ional ins i u e o public inance, o he 2022 ZEW Public Finance Con e ence, he ECON ibu e
Resea ch Wo kshop 2022, o he i s and second edi ion o he wo kshop ‘Pa e nalism: O igins and Con-
sequences’ in Be lin, o wo kshops in Lu he s ad Wi enbe g and Munich, and ou colleagues a he Max
Planck Ins i u e o help ul commen s and sugges ions, and S e an B uckmeye , Magnus Haselie , and
Agnes Schelling o excellen esea ch assis ance.
Au ho con ibu ions Concep ualiza ion: KAK and SAS, Su ey design: KAK and SAS, Su ey imple-
men a ion: SAS, Analysis and g aphic wo k: SAS, W i ing: KAK and SAS, Resou ces: KAK.
Funding Open Access unding enabled and o ganized by P ojek DEAL. Funding o his p ojec came
om he gene al budge o he Max Planck Ins i u e o Tax Law and Public Finance.
Da a a ailabili y Da a can be made a ailable in he da a eposi o y “keepe ” wi h a DOI upon publica-
ion o he manusc ip .
Decla a ions
Con lic o in e es The au ho s a e no awa e o any con lic o in e es ha a e ele an o he con en o
his a icle.
E hical app o al The p ojec ecei ed e hics app o al by he E hics Commi ee o he Depa men o Eco-
nomics o LMU Munich (‘A ibu ion o Happiness Losses,’ da e o app o al 06/09/2020).
Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License,
which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long as
you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e Com-
mons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his a icle
a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line o he
ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended use is
no pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mission
Fig. 11 The e ec o pa e nalism p e e ences on he wo key ou come a iables. Figu e shows he change
in li e sa is ac ion (ligh g ay) and he con ibu ion o he domain ‘Pe sonal F eedom’ in uni s o li e
sa is ac ion (da k g ay) by a di ision along he median p e e ence o pa e nalism. Fo each compa ison,
he le ( igh ) ba e e s o he subg oup ha is mo e skep ical (welcoming) o pa e nalis ic in e en ions
han he median pa icipan . E o ba s indica e mean ± s anda d e o s
55
Pa e nalism a i udes and hehappiness alue o undamen al…
di ec ly om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by/4.0/.
Re e ences
Ambuehl S, Be nheim BD, Ocken els A (2021) Wha mo i a es pa e nalism? An expe imen al s udy,
Ame ican Economic Re iew 111(3):787–830
Ba ling B, Feh E, He z H (2014) The in insic alue o decision igh s. Econome ica
82(6):2005–2039
Benz M, F ey BS (2008) The alue o doing wha you like: E idence om he sel -employed in 23
coun ies. J Economic Beha O g 68(3–4):445–455
Benz M, F ey BS, S u ze A (2004) In oducing p ocedu al u ili y: No only wha , bu also how ma -
e s. J Ins Theo Econ 160(3):377–401
B ehm JW (1966) A heo y o psychological eac ance. Academic P ess, New Yo k
Bi mann F (2022) How us makes a di e ence: The impac o he i s wa e o he Co id-19 pan-
demic on li e sa is ac ion in Ge many. Appl Res Qual Li e 17:1389–1405
Bloss eld HP, on Mau ice J, Schneide T (2011) The Na ional Educa ional Panel S udy: need, main
ea u es, and esea ch po en ial. Z E zieh 14:5–17
Buchanan JM (2005) A aid o be ee: Dependency as deside a um. Public Choice 124:19–31
Cla k AE (2018) Fou decades o he economics o happiness: Whe e nex ? Re Income Weal h
64(2):245–269
Cla k AE, F ij e s P, Shields MA (2008) Rela i e income, happiness, and u ili y: An explana ion o
he Eas e lin Pa adox and o he puzzles. J Econ Li e a u e 46(1):95–144
DeNe e KM, Coope H (1998) The happy pe sonali y: A me a analysis o 137 pe sonali y ai s and
subjec i e well-being. Psychol Bull 124(2):197–229
Diene E, Oishi S, Tay L (2018) Ad ances in subjec i e well-being esea ch. Na Human Beha
2(4):253–260
Diene E (2012) New indings and u u e di ec ions o subjec i e well-being esea ch. Am Psychol
67(8):590–597
Dwo kin G (1972) Pa e nalism. Monis 56(1):64–84
Dwo kin G (2013) De ining Pa e nalism. In: Coons C, Webe M (eds) Pa e nalism: Theo y and p ac-
ice. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, pp 25–38
F ey BS, S u ze A (2000) Happiness p ospe s in democ acy. J Happiness S ud 1:79–102
F ey BS, S u ze A (2002) Wha can economis s lea n om happiness esea ch? J Economic Li e a-
u e 40(2):402–435
G aa land J, Compen B (2015) Economic eedom and li e sa is ac ion: Media ion by income pe cap-
i a and gene alized us . J Happiness S ud 16(3):789–810
Hadsell L, Jones AT (2020) The company you keep: Sa is ac ion wi h li e, economic eedom, and
p e e ence-policy misma ch. J Comp Econ 48(3):642–657
Hall JC, Lawson RA (2014) Economic eedom o he wo ld: An accoun ing o he li e a u e. Con-
emp Econ Policy 32(1):1–19
Hae p e C, Ingleha R, Mo eno A, Welzel C, Kizilo a K, Diez-Med ano J, Lagos M, No is P,
Pona in E, Pu anen B e al (eds.), (2020) Wo ld Values Su ey: Round Se en - Coun y-Pooled
Da a ile, Mad id, Spain & Vienna, Aus ia, JD Sys ems Ins i u e & WVSA Sec e a ia . h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 14281/ 18241.1, Mas e Su ey Ques ionnai e, h p:// www. wo ld alue ssu ey. o g/
WVSDo cumen a io nWV7. jsp (accessed: Janua y 26, 2021)
Helliwell JF, Pu nam RD (2004) The social con ex o well-being, Philosophical. T ans Royal Soc
London, Se ies B: Biol Sci 359(1449):1435–1446
He wig R, Ryall MD (2020) Nudge e sus boos : Agency dynamics unde libe a ian pa e nalism.
Economic J 130(629):1384–1415
He schko C, Knabe A, Schöb R (2019) Looking back in ange ? Re i emen and unemploymen sca -
ing, Demog aphy 56:1105–1129
Hong S, Page S (1989) A psychological eac ance: De elopmen , ac o s uc u e and eliabili y. Psy-
chol Rep 64(3):1323–1326
56
K.A.Kon ad, S.A.Simon
Ingleha R, Klingemann H-D (2000) Genes, cul u e, democ acy, and happiness. In: Diene E, Suh
EM (eds) Cul u e and Subjec i e Wellbeing. MIT p ess, Camb idge, MA USA, pp 165–183
Jackson J (2017) F ee o be happy: Economic eedom and happiness in US S a es. J Happiness S ud
18(4):1207–1229
Kon ad KA (2024) The poli ical economy o pa e nalism. Public Choice 201:61–81
Ko ale a A, Beie lein C, Kempe CJ, Ramms ed B (2012) Eine Ku zskala zu Messung on Kon-
ollübe zeugung: Die Skala in e nale-ex e nale-Kon ollübe zeugung-4 (IE-4), GESIS-wo king
pape s 2012_19 GESIS Köln
Ma hieu E, Ri chie H, Rodés-Gui ao L, Appel C, Gia ino C, Hasell J, Macdonald B, Da ani S, Bel -
ekian D, O iz-Ospina E, Rose M (2020) Co ona i us pandemic (COVID-19). Ou Wo ld Da a
5:947–953
Mill JS (1859/2014) On Libe y, wi h an in oduc ion by W.L. Cou ney, Enhanced Ebooks
Mi on AM, B ehm JW (2006) Reac ance heo y - 40 yea s la e . Zei sch i ü Sozialpsychologie
37(1):9–18
Nakaza o N, Nakashima K, Mo inaga Y (2017) The impo ance o eedom in he Eas and he Wes o e
ime: A me a-analy ic s udy o p edic o s o well-being. Soc Indic Res 130(1):371–388
De Ne e J-E, Wa d G, De Keulenae F, Van Landeghem B, Ka e sos G, No on MI (2018) The asym-
me ic expe ience o posi i e and nega i e economic g ow h: Global e idence using subjec i e well-
being da a. Re Econ S a 100(2):362–375
Pede sen SK, Koch AK, Na zige J (2014) Who wan s pa e nalism? Bull Econ Res 66:147–166
Ro e JB (1990) In e nal e sus ex e nal con ol o ein o cemen : A case his o y o a a iable. Am Psy-
chol 45(4):489–493
Scha z R, Pe e sen T (2023) F eihei : Die Meh zahl de Deu schen ühl sich eingesch änk . InnoVa io
Ve lag, Zü ich
Schmid ke J, He schko C, Schöb R, S ephan G, Eid M, Lawes M (2024) Does wo ke well-being adap o
a pandemic? An e en s udy based on high- equency panel da a. Re Income Weal h 70(3):840–861
Sen A (1988) F eedom o choice: Concep and con en . Eu Econ Re 32:269–294
SKL Glücksa las (2022) Re ie ed 27.02.2023 om: h ps:// www. skl- gluec ksa l as. de/ a ik el/ deu s chlan
ds- gluec ksni eau- e hol - sich- nu - leich . h ml
Shi in SV (2000) Pa e nalism, unconscionabili y doc in, and accomoda ion. Philosophy Public A ai s
29(3):205–250
Sp uk R, Kešelje ić A (2016) Ins i u ional o igins o subjec i e well-being: Es ima ing he e ec s o eco-
nomic eedom on na ional happiness. J Happiness S ud 17(2):659–712
S eel P, Schmid J, Shul z J (2008) Re ining he ela ionship be ween pe sonali y and subjec i e well-
being. Psychol Bull 134(1):138–161
Uni ed Na ions (2020) Co id-19 and Human Righ s: We a e all in his oge he , Ap il 2020, Re ie ed
15.01.2021 om: h ps:// www. un. o g/ en/ un- co on a i us- commu nica ions- eam/ we- a e- all- oge he -
human- igh s- and- co id- 19- espo nse- and
Thale RH, Suns ein CR (2003) Libe a ian pa e nalism. Ame ican Economic Re 93(2):175–179
T ege C (2023) When do people accep go e nmen pa e nalism? Theo y Exp E idence, Regula ion
Go e nance 17:195–214
Veenho en R (2000) F eedom and happiness. A compa a i e s udy in 44 na ions in he ea ly 1990’s’. In:
Diene E, Suh EM (eds) Cul u e and Subjec i e Wellbeing. MIT p ess, Camb idge, MA USA, pp
165–183
Winds eige L, Kon ad KA, Ahlheim M (2022) Cu ailmen o ci il libe ies and subjec i e li e sa is ac-
ion. J Happiness S ud 23:2157–2170
Publishe ’s No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps
and ins i u ional a ilia ions.
