Divided by the Market, Divided by the State: Distribution, Redistribution and Welfare Attitudes in 47 Countries

Abstract

This article examines the impact of income inequality and welfare state context on the extent to which the rich and poor share similar attitudes towards redistribution. It asks whether and how differences in attitudes, particularly those between income groups, are shaped by inequality and redistributive efforts. Based on a multi‐level analysis of individual survey data across 47 countries at three points in time, the article shows that such an interaction of individual characteristics and the macro‐context indeed matters considerably. While material self‐interest, unsurprisingly, explains part of the individual differences, the analysis also shows, for the first time, that both high inequality and strongly redistributive policies divide public opinion along the lines of socioeconomic position. Put differently, while market inequality may be associated with less cohesive attitudes, a highly redistributive welfare state does not seem to foster agreement among the public, either. These findings have important policy implications for advanced welfare states, including a renewed emphasis on ‘predistribution’ (i.e., policies that influence the primary distribution of income) in order to avoid the scenario of intensified redistributive conflicts.

Social transfers and income inequality in OECD countries

“…The graph of the effect of ST on income inequality based on different levels of corruption shows that the point estimates of these elasticities are smaller, although still statistically significant when high-corruption countries are considered. This result is in line with our hypothesis that in countries where corruption is high, collective demand for redistribution is low due to the low trust in government intervention (Algan, Cahuc and Sangnier 2016;Bergh and Bjørnskov 2011;Bjørnskov and Svendsen 2013;Daniele and Geys 2015;Wulfgramm and Starke 2017). In addition, several channels can be suggested to corroborate the view that corrupt actions undermine the equalising effect of social transfers.…”

Does the immigration issue divide the left’s attitudes towards social welfare? A study on public support of social benefits and services in the Nordic countries

“…However, political opinion and education level were statistically significant before the interaction terms were included in the analysis. The more Left-leaning the people are, the more they support the welfare state (van Oorcshot, 2006;Wulfgramm and Starke, 2017). Also, it was found that citizens' attitudes towards social welfare was more reserved if they were less educated (cf.…”

“…Instead, the political Right underlines the importance of an individual's social responsibility. It is shown that when the political view goes from Right to Left, the support for social benefits and services goes up (Blekesaune, 2007;Pederson and Shekha, 2018;Roosma et al, 2014;van Oorcshot, 2006;Wulfgramm and Starke, 2017). It can be concluded that differences underlying political opinion are deep in the philosophical thinking of society and its cultural values.…”

“…Different factors may explain variations in social welfare attitude within countries. For instance, it has been assumed that women benefit relatively more from the social benefits and services of the welfare state than men, because women are still more outside of the labour force than men (Rantanen et al, 2015;Fern andez and Jaime-Castillo, 2018;Kim and Yushin, 2018;Pederson and Shekha, 2018;Wulfgramm and Starke, 2017). Age is another significant factor for social welfare attitudes, but research results are contradictory.…”

One Hundred Years of Social Protection: The Rise of the Social Question in Brazil, India, China, and South Africa, 1920–2020

“…Social protection policies are facing the challenge of switching from "easy redistribution" to "hard redistribution" (Holland and Schneider 2017). Wulfgramm and Starke (2017) argue that in societies with extreme socio-economic inequalities, attempts at more far-reaching redistribution can become divisive. Based on data that includes Brazil, South Africa, and other middle-income countries, they find (2017: 20f.)…”