What explains individual support for inter-regional redistribution? Few studies examine support for regional redistribution, even though such issues are politically salient in many democracies. We test models that hypothesize that such preferences are affected by regional and individual income, as well as other arguments beyond the traditional political economy framework. We focus on informational assumptions and implications of these models with an experiment embedded in a nationally representative survey in Spain. We randomly inform some citizens of the true relative income of their region to assess the impact of this information on regional redistribution preferences. We find that citizens’ learning about their region’s relative position affects these preferences in a manner consistent with some of the political economy models. We also find some support for out-group concerns as an important factor. The findings have implications for the applicability of economic models to explaining support for regional arrangements.
AlesinaA.La FerraraE. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 897-931.
2.
AlesinaA.SpolaoreE.WacziargR. (2005). Trade, growth and the size of countries. Handbook of Economic Growth, 1, 1499-1542.
3.
AmatF. (2012). Party competition and preferences for inter-regional redistribution. South European Society and Politics, 17, 449-465.
4.
BénabouR.TiroleJ. (2006). Belief in a just world and redistributive politics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 699-746.
5.
BeramendiP. (2012). The political geography of inequality: Regions and redistribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BillietJ.EisingaR.ScheepersP. (1996). Ethnocentrism in the low countries: A comparative perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 22, 401-416.
7.
BoltonP.RolandG. (1997). The breakup of nations: A political economy analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1057-1090.
8.
BordignonM.ManasseP.TabelliniG. (2001). Optimal regional redistribution under asymmetric information. American Economic Review, 91, 709-723.
9.
BrancatiD. (2008). The origins and strengths of regional parties. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 135-159.
10.
CavailleC.TrumpK.-S. (2015). The two facets of social policy preferences. The Journal of Politics, 77, 146-160.
11.
CeobanuA. M.EscandellX. (2010). Comparative analyses of public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration using multinational survey data: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 309-328.
12.
ColomerJ. M. (1998). The Spanish “state of autonomies”: Non-institutional federalism. West European Politics, 21(4), 40-52.
13.
Costa-FontJ.Tremosa-BalcellsR. (2008). Support for state opting out and stateless national identity in the Basque Country. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 2464-2477.
14.
CrucesG.TrugliaR. P.TetazM. (2013). Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 100-112.
15.
de la FuenteA. (2011). La financiación territorial en España: Situación actual y propuestas de reforma [Territorial funding in Spain: Current situation and reform proposals] (Vol. I). Madrid, Spain: Civitas-Thomson Reuters.
16.
DeMarreeK. G.PettyR. E.WheelerS. C. (2005). Priming a new identity: Self-monitoring moderates the effects of nonself primes on self-judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 657-671.
17.
DuckittJ.WagnerC.du PlessisI.BirumI. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75-93.
18.
DufloE.SaezE. (2003). The role of information and social interactions in retirement plan decisions: Evidence from a randomized experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 815-842.
19.
FehrE.SchmidtK. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817-868.
20.
Fernández-AlbertosJ.ManzanoD. (2012). The lack of partisan conflict over the welfare state in Spain. South European Society and Politics, 17, 427-447.
21.
FinseraasH. (2012). Poverty, ethnic minorities among the poor, and preferences for redistribution in European regions. Journal of European Social Policy, 22, 164-180.
22.
FlamandS. (2014). Interregional transfers, group loyalty and the decentralization of redistribution. Reus, Spain: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
23.
HodsonG.CostelloK. (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18, 691-698.
24.
IversenT.SoskiceD. (2001). An asset theory of social policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95, 875-894.
25.
KuziemkoI.NortonM. I.SaezE.StantchevaS. (2013). How elastic are preferences for redistribution? Evidence from randomized survey experiments. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
26.
LenzG. S. (2009). Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 821-837.
27.
LeónS. (2009). ¿Por qué el sistema de financiación autonómica es inestable? [Why is the autonomic financial system unstable?] Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 128(1), 57-87.
28.
LeónS. (2007). The political economy of fiscal decentralization: Bringing politics to the study of intergovernmental transfers. Barcelona, Spain: Institut d’Estudis Autonòmics.
29.
LuX.ScheveK. (2014). Self-centered inequity aversion and the mass politics of taxation. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
30.
MoeneK. O.WallersteinM. (2001). Inequality, social insurance, and redistribution. American Political Science Review, 95, 859-874.
31.
MontasellG.SánchezE. (2012, July). Comparació internacional de les balances fiscals de les regions amb el sector públic central: una anàlisi de l’efecte redistributiu [International comparison of regional fiscal balances with the central government public sector: An analysis of redistributive effects]. Papers de Treball, Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d’Economia i Coneixement.
32.
OatesW. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1120-1149.
33.
PaluzieE. (2010). The costs and benefits of staying together: The Catalan case in Spain. In BoschN.EspasaM.OlleA. S. (Eds.), The political economy of inter-regional fiscal flows: Measurement, determinants and effects on country stability (pp. 357-369). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
34.
PetersenT.SchellerH.WintermannO. (2008). Public attitudes towards German federalism: A point of departure for a reform of German (fiscal) federalism? Differences between public opinion and the political debate. German Politics, 17, 559-586.
35.
PettigrewT. F.MeertensR. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57-75.
36.
RoddenJ. (2010). Federalism and inter-regional redistribution. In BoschN.EspasaM.OlleA. S. (Eds.), The political economy of inter-regional fiscal flows: Measurement, determinants, and effects on country stability (pp. 191-219). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
37.
RoemerJ. E. (1998). Why the poor do not expropriate the rich: An old argument in new garb. Journal of Public Economics, 70, 399-424.
38.
SambanisN.MilanovicB. (2014). Explaining regional autonomy differences in decentralized countries. Comparative Political Studies, 47, 1830-1855.
39.
ShayoM. (2009). A model of social identity with an application to political economy: Nation, class, and redistribution. American Political Science Review, 103, 147-174.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
