57,120 rated or chosen profiles from 3,570 respondents, in up to 8 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 7 attributes.
| Description | 3,570 British adults (Deltapoll online panel) each compared 8 pairs of hypothetical policy packages to fund the NHS, varying income-tax rates in five income brackets (non-decreasing schedules), the share of government spending on the NHS and whether immigrants are entitled to free health care. Outcomes: choice with a don't-know option and a 1-4 liking rating of each option. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Pardos-Prado, S., & Xena, C. (2026). Immigration, tax progressivity, and support for redistribution. Journal of European Public Policy. |
| DOI | 10.1080/13501763.2026.2685818 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HUCLUE |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 3,570 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 57,120 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 8 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 7 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 3,805 |
| Topic | tax welfare economy, health covid |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | GB |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): The five bracket tax rates form one schedule drawn from the 126 non-decreasing schedules over 0/15/25/35/45% (article: tax burdens never higher in lower brackets; CJ1 has 126 values, near-equal frequencies). So per-bracket level shares are unequal by construction (e.g. bottom bracket 0% in 70 of 126 schedules, top bracket 45% in 70 of 126), and AMCEs must condition on the allowed combinations. |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Because the attribute levels were not randomized independently, an estimator has to account for the restriction; a plain difference in means across levels can mislead.
Outcomes:
| choice | Generally speaking, if you had to choose, which one of these two options would you prefer? [choice, opt-out allowed] |
|---|---|
| rating | And just thinking of option A [B], how do you feel about it? [rating, 1 (I like it a lot) to 4 (I don't like it at all)] |
attr_eligibilityattr_nhs_spendingattr_tax_14733_25688attr_tax_25689_43662attr_tax_43663_75500attr_tax_below_14733attr_tax_over_75500choicecov_agecov_educationcov_ethnicitycov_eu_ref_2016cov_gendercov_housingcov_income_bandcov_marital_statuscov_political_attentioncov_regioncov_social_gradecov_survey_weightcov_survey_weight_nonpoliticalcov_vote_2019cov_vote_intentioncov_work_statusidprofileratingtask
The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.
Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):
# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("pardosprado_2026_nhs_tax", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("pardosprado_2026_nhs_tax", source="conj")
@article{Pardos_Prado_2026, title={Immigration, tax progressivity, and support for redistribution}, ISSN={1466-4429}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2026.2685818}, DOI={10.1080/13501763.2026.2685818}, journal={Journal of European Public Policy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Pardos-Prado, Sergi and Xena, Carla}, year={2026}, month=June, pages={1–25} }
| IRW version | v584 |
|---|---|
| Redivis dataset | irw_conjoint v4.2 |
| Redivis dataset DOI | 10.57761/qkye-q530 |
| Manifest pin for this IRW version | v4.2 |
| Metadata source | irw_meta v44.0 |