IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v8y2018i4p99-d175912.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inequality Perceptions, Preferences Conducive to Redistribution, and the Conditioning Role of Social Position

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Fatke

    (Department of Political Science, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, München 80539, Germany)

Abstract

Inequality poses one of the biggest challenges of our time. It is not self-correcting in the sense that citizens demand more redistributive measures in light of rising inequality, which recent studies suggest may be due to the fact that citizens’ perceptions of inequality diverge from objective levels. Moreover, it is not the latter, but the former, which are related to preferences conducive to redistribution. However, the nascent literature on inequality perceptions has, so far, not accounted for the role of subjective position in society. The paper advances the argument that the relationship between inequality perceptions and preferences towards redistribution is conditional on the subjective position of respondents. To that end, I analyze comprehensive survey data on inequality perceptions from the social inequality module of the International Social Survey Programme (1992, 1999, and 2009). Results show that inequality perceptions are associated with preferences conducive to redistribution particularly among those perceived to be at the top of the social ladder. Gaining a better understanding of inequality perceptions contributes to comprehending the absence self-correcting inequality.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias Fatke, 2018. "Inequality Perceptions, Preferences Conducive to Redistribution, and the Conditioning Role of Social Position," Societies, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:99-:d:175912
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/8/4/99/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/8/4/99/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert C. Feenstra & Robert Inklaar & Marcel P. Timmer, 2015. "The Next Generation of the Penn World Table," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(10), pages 3150-3182, October.
    2. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    3. Eduardo Lora, 2013. "The Distance between Perception and Reality in the Social Domains of Life," Research Department Publications IDB-WP-423, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    4. Larry M. Bartels, 2016. "The New Gilded Age," Introductory Chapters, in: Unequal Democracy:The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Princeton University Press.
    5. Cruces, Guillermo & Perez-Truglia, Ricardo & Tetaz, Martin, 2013. "Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 100-112.
    6. Christina Starmans & Mark Sheskin & Paul Bloom, 2017. "Why people prefer unequal societies," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(4), pages 1-7, April.
    7. Andreas Kuhn, 2016. "The Subversive Nature of Inequality: Subjective Inequality Perceptions and Attitudes to Social Inequality," CESifo Working Paper Series 6023, CESifo.
    8. Eduardo Lora, 2013. "The Distance between Perception and Reality in the Social Domains of Life," Research Department Publications IDB-WP-423, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    9. Engelhardt, Carina & Wagener, Andreas, 2014. "Biased Perceptions of Income Inequality and Redistribution," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100395, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Larry M. Bartels, 2016. "Unequal Democracy:The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10831.
    11. Meltzer, Allan H & Richard, Scott F, 1981. "A Rational Theory of the Size of Government," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 914-927, October.
    12. Fernández-Albertos, José & Kuo, Alexander, 2018. "Income Perception, Information, and Progressive Taxation: Evidence from a Survey Experiment," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 83-110, January.
    13. Kuhn, Andreas, 2011. "In the eye of the beholder: Subjective inequality measures and individuals' assessment of market justice," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 625-641.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:6:p:741-745 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Frederick Solt, 2016. "The Standardized World Income Inequality Database," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1267-1281, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gassmann, Franziska & Timár, Eszter, 2024. "Perceived position on the social ladder and redistributive preferences – A survey experiment from the Kyrgyz Republic," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. Joshua M. Pearce & Emily Prehoda, 2019. "Could 79 People Solarize the U.S. Electric Grid?," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-27, March.
    3. Gwangeun Choi, 2021. "Individuals’ socioeconomic position, inequality perceptions, and redistributive preferences in OECD countries," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(2), pages 239-264, June.
    4. Inna Cabelkova & Lubos Smutka, 2021. "The Effects of Solidarity, Income, and Reliance on the State on Personal Income Tax Preferences. The Case of the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-22, September.
    5. Liza G. Steele & Nate Breznau, 2019. "Attitudes toward Redistributive Policy: An Introduction," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-12, June.
    6. Teresa María García Muñoz & Juliette Milgram Baleix & Omar Odeh Odeh, 2022. "System Justification Beliefs and Life Satisfaction. The role of inequality aversion and support for redistribution," ThE Papers 22/15, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gwangeun Choi, 2021. "Individuals’ socioeconomic position, inequality perceptions, and redistributive preferences in OECD countries," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(2), pages 239-264, June.
    2. Choi, Gwangeun, 2019. "Revisiting the redistribution hypothesis with perceived inequality and redistributive preferences," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 220-244.
    3. Gassmann, Franziska & Timár, Eszter, 2024. "Perceived position on the social ladder and redistributive preferences – A survey experiment from the Kyrgyz Republic," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M. & Krozer, Alice & Ramírez-Álvarez, Aurora A. & de la Torre, Rodolfo & Velez-Grajales, Roberto, 2022. "Perceptions of inequality and social mobility in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    5. Vladimir Gimpelson & Daniel Treisman, 2018. "Misperceiving inequality," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 27-54, March.
    6. Andreas Kuhn, 2020. "The individual (mis-)perception of wage inequality: measurement, correlates and implications," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2039-2069, November.
    7. Gimpelson, V. & Chernina, E., 2020. "How we perceive our place in income distribution and how the perceptions deviate from reality," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 46(2), pages 30-56.
    8. Kuhn, Andreas, 2019. "The subversive nature of inequality: Subjective inequality perceptions and attitudes to social inequality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 331-344.
    9. Windsteiger, Lisa, 2022. "The redistributive consequences of segregation and misperceptions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    10. Díez-Alonso, Daniel, 2020. "Taxpayer Bias in Perceived Income Distributions," MPRA Paper 116775, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Jan 2021.
    11. Roberto Iacono & Marco Ranaldi, 2019. "Perceptions of Inequality and Redistribution: A Note," Post-Print halshs-02042330, HAL.
    12. Lin Yang, 2018. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: Resource constraint mechanisms," CASE Papers /212, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    13. Dietmar Fehr & Johanna Mollerstrom & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2022. "Your Place in the World: Relative Income and Global Inequality," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 232-268, November.
    14. Tiaan MEIRING & Catherine KANNEMEYER & Elnari POTGIETER, 2018. "The Gap Between Rich and Poor: South African Society’s Biggest Divide Depends on Where You Think You Fit In," Working Paper ffd19ae8-4b12-4b82-b218-8, Agence française de développement.
    15. Knell, Markus & Stix, Helmut, 2020. "Perceptions of inequality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    16. Kishishita, Daiki & Yamagishi, Atsushi & Matsumoto, Tomoko, 2023. "Overconfidence, income-ability gap, and preferences for income equality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    17. Wright, Reilly & Aldama, Abraham, 2023. "Not all luck is created equal: Sources of income inequality and willingness to redistribute," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    18. Nicolas Albacete & Pirmin Fessler & Peter Lindner, 2022. "The Wealth Distribution and Redistributive Preferences: Evidence from a Randomized Survey Experiment (Nicolás Albacete, Pirmin Fessler, Peter Lindner)," Working Papers 239, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank).
    19. Christopher Hoy & Franziska Mager, 2019. "Why are relatively poor people not more supportive of redistribution? Evidence from a survey experiment across 10 countries," Working Papers 489, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    20. Hope, David & Limberg, Julian & Weber, Nina, 2023. "Why do (some) ordinary Americans support tax cuts for the rich? Evidence from a randomised survey experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:99-:d:175912. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.