IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwsop/diw_sp1182.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Punching up or Punching down? How Stereotyping the Rich and the Poor Impacts Redistributive Preferences in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Diermeier
  • Madeleine L. Fischer
  • Judith Niehues

Abstract

Redistribution and the welfare state have been linked by academic discourse to narratives that portray specific societal groups as ‘deserving’ or ‘undeserving’. The present analysis contributes to this scholarship in a twofold manner. First, it provides a holistic view on the beneficiaries and benefactors of welfare and asks how the public perception of the rich and the poor drives redistributive preferences. It is revealed that these beliefs, particularly about the ‘deserving’ poor, are significant determinants of strong redistributive preferences. Despite powerful prevailing prejudices about the rich, support for redistribution in Germany is not motivated by the urge to castigate this group for their affluence. Second, we are interested in the distribution of the different moralistic beliefs about the rich and the poor over socio-demographic characteristics. Regarding stereotypical beliefs about the poor, we quantify the phenomenon of ‘punching down’, performed by those immediately above the lowest income quintile. In fact, members of the second income quintile show levels of disdain similar to their wealthier counterparts on the other end of the income distribution. On the other hand, moralistic beliefs about the ‘deserving poor’ are equally held across different socio-economic levels. Implications and limitations of our findings are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias Diermeier & Madeleine L. Fischer & Judith Niehues, 2023. "Punching up or Punching down? How Stereotyping the Rich and the Poor Impacts Redistributive Preferences in Germany," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1182, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwsop:diw_sp1182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.868679.de/diw_sp1182.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Knell, Markus & Stix, Helmut, 2020. "Perceptions of inequality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    2. Vladimir Gimpelson & Daniel Treisman, 2018. "Misperceiving inequality," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 27-54, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Barr, Nicholas, 2001. "The Welfare State as Piggy Bank: Information, Risk, Uncertainty, and the Role of the State," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199246595.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Windsteiger, Lisa, 2022. "The redistributive consequences of segregation and misperceptions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Andreas Kuhn, 2020. "The individual (mis-)perception of wage inequality: measurement, correlates and implications," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2039-2069, November.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Støstad, Morten Nyborg, 2023. "Fairness Beliefs Affect Perceived Economic Inequality," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 22/2023, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    7. Markus Knell & Helmut Stix, 2021. "Inequality, perception biases and trust," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(4), pages 801-824, December.
    8. Marino, Maria & Iacono, Roberto & Mollerstrom, Johanna, 2023. "(Mis-)perceptions, information, and political polarization," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119268, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Díez-Alonso, Daniel, 2020. "Taxpayer Bias in Perceived Income Distributions," MPRA Paper 116775, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Jan 2021.
    10. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2021. "Understanding Tax Policy: How do People Reason?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2309-2369.
    11. Andreoli, Francesco & Olivera, Javier, 2020. "Preferences for redistribution and exposure to tax-benefit schemes in Europe," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    12. Attila Gáspár & Carmen Cervone & Federica Durante & Anne Maass & Caterina Suitner & Roberta Rosa Valtorta & Michela Vezzoli, 2023. "A Twofold Subjective Measure of Income Inequality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 25-43, August.
    13. Summers, Kate & Accominotti, Fabien & Burchardt, Tania & Hecht, Katharina & Mann, Elizabeth & Mijs, Jonathan J.B, 2022. "Deliberating inequality: a blueprint for studying the social formation of beliefs about economic inequality," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114591, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Knight, John & Gunatilaka, Ramani, 2022. "Income inequality and happiness: Which inequalities matter in China?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    15. Christopher Hoy & Russell Toth & Nurina Merdikawati, 2024. "A false divide? Providing information about inequality aligns preferences for redistribution between right- and left-wing voters," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 22(3), pages 669-707, September.
    16. Abraham Aldama & Cristina Bicchieri & Jana Freundt & Barbara Mellers & Ellen Peters, 2021. "How perceptions of autonomy relate to beliefs about inequality and fairness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-16, January.
    17. Jiménez-Jiménez, Natalia & Molis, Elena & Solano-García, Ángel, 2023. "Don't shoot yourself in the foot! A (real-effort task) experiment on income redistribution and voting," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Riccardo Bruni & Alessandro Gioffré & Maria Marino, 2022. ""In-group bias in preferences for redistribution: a survey experiment in Italy"," IREA Working Papers 202223, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Nov 2023.
    20. Mu, Ren, 2022. "Perceived relative income, fairness, and the role of government: Evidence from a randomized survey experiment in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Inequality; welfare state; redistribution; poor; rich; distancing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • C38 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Classification Methdos; Cluster Analysis; Principal Components; Factor Analysis

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:diw:diwsop:diw_sp1182. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sodiwde.html .

    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.