The moral economies of market societies: popular attitudes towards market competition, redistribution and reciprocity in comparative perspective

Abstract

In a classical typology, Polanyi distinguishes three basic modes of economic integration: competitive market exchange, redistribution and reciprocity. While markets are dominant in modern capitalism, redistribution and reciprocity are—to varying extent—also part of its institutional architecture. Asking whether such institutional differences are mirrored in distinct ‘moral economies’, we investigate ordinary citizens’ support for market competition, redistribution and reciprocity across 14 capitalist economies. Combining data from three comparative surveys, we analyze, first, the extent to which these principles are supported by citizens and whether they cluster into distinct ‘moral economies’; second, whether these norms are anchored in formal institutional settings; and finally, how privileged and disadvantaged groups differ in their support. While support for market competition is strong across countries, it is to varying degrees complemented by support for redistribution and reciprocity. We identify a competition-dominated, an embedded and a strongly embedded moral economy. The interplay of formal institutions and people’s social–structural position partly explains differences in popular support.

Legitimizing Inequality

“…The moral economy approach is interested in the minds of the common people, in particular which distributional outcome is seen as fair and which claims one can justifiably make (Thompson 1971(Thompson , 1991. While much work has been made on traditional societies, the contemporary literature scrutinizes people's attitudes with regard to issues such as inequality, welfare transfers or deservingness (Rothstein 1998;Mau 2003;Sachweh 2012;Koos and Sachweh 2017). In a stylized way one could say that the moral economy approach places stronger emphasis on people's attitudinal stances and differences between different status groups, while the cultural repertoire perspective is more interested in the available types of arguments, understandings and justifications people deploy in a given social context.…”

Envy of the rich is one reason that Americans favor reducing income inequality

“…The moral economy of income inequality clearly has multiple dimensions, with attitudes and values about the process (status attainment and earnings) especially emphasizing equity (Evans, Kelley and Peoples 2010) and opportunity. By contrast, attitudes and values about outcomes (income distribution, income inequality) mix equity goals, solidarity/ cohesion motivations, and "package deals" accepting policies linked to legitimated institutions or core cultural elements (Breznau and Hommerich 2019, Kelley and Zagorski 2005, Koos and Sachweh 2017, Sachweh 2012. This paper focuses on the latter, on attitudes about outcomes.…”

Unemployment and political trust across 24 Western democracies: Evidence on a welfare state paradox

“…Correspondingly, there is evidence that in wealthier European countries, citizens hold higher expectations for government and political institutions in general (Foster and Frieden, 2017). With respect to the welfare state more particularly, there also is evidence that the size, profile and generosity of existing institutions correlate with citizens' attitudes towards the desirability of redistribution (Andreß and Heien, 2001;Sachweh, 2019;Svallfors, 2007), government responsibilities to address social problems (Koos and Sachweh, 2017), or even with citizens' perceptions about which groups deserve or which circumstances normatively warrant public support (van Oorschot, 2000(van Oorschot, , 2006. Moreover, when it comes to unemployment benefits specifically, cutbacks in existing policies 'appear to be a universal generator of democratic dissatisfaction across broad groups in Western Europe' (Kumlin, 2011: 179), that is in characteristically generous welfare state environments.…”