Social insurance motivations consider the welfare of others who are in potentially unfavorable situations. However, their role in increasing support for redistribution is not yet fully understood. The experiment reported here examined distributional decisions in which participants determined income distribution without being informed to which income class they would belong. This was contrasted with decisions made in lottery situations. Lottery decisions had the same risk for oneself, but they lacked a social context, namely the influence on the incomes of others. Less risky (more equal) decisions were observed in distributional decisions than in lottery decisions. Further, the selection of equality in distributional decisions (but not the risk aversion observed in lottery decisions) was positively correlated with support for welfare policies, which had been measured by a pre-experiment survey. This study observed the critical role of social context, which promotes the consideration of the welfare of others in fostering support for redistribution.
AlesinaAlbertoAngeletosGeorge-Marios (2005) Fairness and Redistribution. American Economic Review95(4): 960–980.
2.
AlesinaAlbertoGiulianoPaola (2011) Preferences for Redistribution. In BenhabibJessJacksonMatthew OBisinAlberto (eds) Handbook of Social Economics, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland, 93–131.
3.
ArikanGizemBloomPazit Ben-Nun (2015) Social Values and Cross-National Differences in Attitudes Towards Welfare. Political Studies63(2): 431–448.
4.
ArtsWilGelissenJohn (2001) Welfare States, Solidarity and Justice Principles: Does the type really matter?Acta Sociologica44(4): 283–299.
5.
BaldwinPeter (1990) The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class Bases of the European Welfare State 1875-1975. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BechtelMichael MLieschRomanScheveKenneth F (2018) Inequality and Redistribution Behavior in a Give-or-Take Game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America115(14): 3611–3616.
7.
BenabouRolandOkEfe A (2001) Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The POUM hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Economics116: 447–487.
8.
BlekesauneMortenQuadagnoJill (2003) Public Attitudes Toward Welfare State Policies: A comparative analysis of 24 nations. European Sociological Review19(5): 415–427.
9.
CamererColin FFehrErnst (2004) Measuring Social Norms and Preferences Using Experimental Games: A guide for social scientists. In HenrichJosephBoydRobertBowlesSamuelCamererColinFehrErnstGintisHerbert (eds) Foundations of Human Sociality – Experimental and Ethnographic Evidence from 15 Small-Scale Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55–95.
10.
CarlssonFredrikGuptaGautamJohansson-StenmanOlof (2003) Choosing from Behind a Veil of Ignorance in India. Applied Economics Letters10(13): 825–827.
11.
Conde-RuizJ IgnacioProfetaPaola (2007) The Redistributive Design of Social Security Systems. Economic Journal117(520): 686–712.
12.
DimickMatthewRuedaDavidStegmuellerDaniel (2016) The Altruistic Rich? Inequality and other-regarding preferences for redistribution. Quarterly Journal of Political Science11(4): 385–439.
13.
DimickMatthewRuedaDavidStegmuellerDaniel (2018) Models of Other-Regarding Preferences, Inequality, and Redistribution. Annual Review of Political Science21: 441–460.
14.
DownsAnthony (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
15.
Esping-AndersenGøsta (1985) Politics against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power.Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
16.
Esping-AndersenGøsta (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17.
FehrErnstSchmidtKlaus M (2006) The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism – Experimental evidence and new theories. In KolmSerge-ChristopheYthierJean M (eds) Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland, 615–691.
18.
FernándezJuan JJaime-CastilloAntonio M (2018) The Institutional Foundation of Social Class Differences in Pro-redistribution Attitudes: A cross-national analysis, 1985–2010. Social Forces96(3): 1009–1038.
GouveiaMiguelMasiaNeal A (1998) Does the Median Voter Model Explain the Size of Government? Evidence from the states. Public Choice97(1): 159–177.
21.
GründlerKlausKöllnerSebastian (2017) Determinants of Governmental Redistribution: Income distribution, development levels, and the role of perceptions. Journal of Comparative Economics45(4): 930–962.
22.
HemerijckAnton C (ed.) (2017) The Uses of Social Investment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
IversenTorbenGoplerudMax (2018) Redistribution Without a Median Voter: Models of multidimensional politics. Annual Review of Political Science21: 295–317.
24.
IversenTorbenSoskiceDavid (2001) An Asset Theory of Social Policy Preferences. American Political Science Review95(4): 875–893.
25.
IversenTorbenSoskiceDavid (2019) Democracy and Prosperity: Reinventing Capitalism Through a Turbulent Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
JaegerMads Meier (2006) Welfare Regimes and Attitudes Towards Redistribution: The regime hypothesis revisited. European Sociological Review22(2): 157–170.
27.
JohannessonMagnusGerdthamUlf-G (1995) A Pilot Test of Using the Veil of Ignorance Approach to Estimate a Social Welfare Function for Income. Applied Economics Letters2(10): 400–402.
28.
KatoJunko (2003) Regressive Taxation and the Welfare State: Path Dependence and Policy Diffusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
KenworthyLaneMcCallLeslie (2008) Inequality, Public Opinion and Redistribution. Socio-Economic Review6(1): 35–68.
30.
LoayzaNormanRigoliniJameleLlorenteGonzalo (2012) Do Middle Classes Bring About Institutional Reforms?Economics Letters116(3): 440–444.
31.
LupuNoamPontussonJonas (2011) The Structure of Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution. American Political Science Review105(2): 316–336.
32.
MeltzerAllan HRichardScott F (1981) A Rational Theory of the Size of Government. Journal of Political Economy89(5): 914–927.
33.
MilanovicBranko (2000) The Median-Voter Hypothesis, Income Inequality, and Income Redistribution: An empirical test with the required data. European Journal of Political Economy16(3): 367–410.
34.
MoeneKarle OveWallersteinMichael (2001) Inequality, Social Insurance, and Redistribution. American Political Science Review95(4): 859–874.
35.
PalmeJoakim (2006) Welfare States and Inequality: Institutional designs and distributive outcome. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility24(4): 387–403.
36.
PontussonJonasWeisstannerDavid (2018) Macroeconomic Conditions, Inequality Shocks and the Politics of Redistribution, 1990–2013. Journal of European Public Policy25(1): 31–58.
37.
RawlsJohn (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
38.
RehmPhilipp (2009) Risks and Redistribution: An individual-level analysis. Comparative Political Studies42(7): 855–881.
39.
RehmPhilipp (2011) Social Policy by Popular Demand. World Politics63(2): 271–299.
40.
RehmPhilipp (2016) Risk Inequality and Welfare States: Social Policy Preferences, Development, and Dynamics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
RuedaDavidStegmuellerDaniel (2019) Who Wants What? Redistribution Preferences in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Schildberg-HörischHannah (2010) Is the Veil of Ignorance Only a Concept About Risk? An experiment. Journal of Public Economics94(11–12): 1062–1066.
43.
Schmidt-CatranAlexander W (2016) Economic Inequality and Public Demand for Redistribution: Combining cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence. Socio-Economic Review14(1): 119–140.
44.
SvallforsStefan (1997) Worlds of Welfare and Attitudes to Redistribution: A comparison of eight western nations. European Sociological Review13(3): 283–304.
45.
SvallforsStefan (1999) The Middle Class and Welfare State Retrenchment. In SvallforsStefanTaylor-GoobyPeter (eds) The End of the Welfare State? Responses to State Retrenchment. London: Routledge, 34–52.
46.
SvallforsStefan (ed.) (2007) The Political Sociology of the Welfare State. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
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.
