This paper analyses the effect of macroeconomic and social conditions on the demand for redistribution. Using a synthetic cohort design to generate panel data at the level of socio-demographic groups, analysis of fives waves of data from the European Social Survey (2002–2010) shows that differences across countries in macroeconomic and social conditions have an effect on the demand for redistribution. Consistent with theoretical expectations, economic growth generates a lower demand for redistribution, while higher income inequality generates a higher demand. By contrast, differences across countries in unemployment levels and social expenditure are unrelated to the demand for redistribution. The analysis also suggests that empirical results depend to a considerable extent on the assumptions underlying different methodological approaches.
AalbergT. (2003) Achieving Justice: Comparative Public Opinion on Income Redistribution. Leiden: Brill.
2.
AlesinaA.GlaeserE. (2004) Fighting Poverty in the U.S. and Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
AndreβH.-J.HeienT. (2001) ‘Four Worlds of Welfare Attitudes? A Comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States’, European Sociological Review17(4): 337–56.
4.
BelevaI.TzanovV. (2008) Decent Work Country Report. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and International Labour Office. Geneva: Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia.
5.
BénabouR. (1996) ‘Inequality and Growth’, in BernankeJ.S.RotembergJulio J. (eds), National Bureau of Economic Research Macro Annual11. Boston: MIT Press.
6.
BlekesauneM. (2007) ‘Economic Conditions and Public Attitudes to Welfare Policies’, European Sociological Review23(3): 393–403.
7.
BlekesauneM.QuadagnoJ. (2003) ‘Public Attitudes toward Welfare State Policies: A Comparative Analysis of 24 Nations’, European Sociological Review19(5): 415–27.
8.
BowlesS.GintisH. (2000) ‘Reciprocity, Self-Interest, and the Welfare State’, Nordic Journal of Political Economy26(4): 35–53.
9.
BradleyD.HuberE.MollerS.NielsenF.StephensJ.D. (2003) ‘Distribution and Redistribution in Postindustrial Democracies’, World Politics55(2): 193–228.
10.
BusemeyerM.R.GoerresA.WeschleS. (2009) ‘Attitudes towards Redistributive Spending in an Era of Demographic Ageing: The Rival Pressures from Age and Income in 14 OECD Countries’, Journal of European Social Policy19(3): 195–212.
11.
DallingerU. (2010) ‘Public Support for Redistribution: What Explains Cross-national Differences?’ Journal of European Social Policy20(4): 333–49.
12.
DionM.L.BirchfieldV. (2010) ‘Economic Development, Income Inequality, and Preferences for Redistribution’, International Studies Quarterly54(2): 315–34.
13.
DurrR.H. (1993) ‘What Moves Policy Sentiment?’ American Political Science Review87(1): 158–70.
14.
EriksonR.GoldthorpeJ.H. (1992) The Constant Flux. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
15.
Esping-AndersenG. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16.
FinseraasH. (2009) ‘Income Inequality and Demand for Redistribution: A Multilevel Analysis of European Public Opinion’, Scandinavian Political Studies32(1): 94–119.
17.
FongC. (2001) ‘Social Preferences, Self-interest, and the Demand for Redistribution’, Journal of Public Economics82(2): 225–46.
18.
FraileM.FerrerM. (2005) ‘Explaining the Determinants of Public Support for Cuts in Unemployment Benefits Spending across OECD Countries’, International Sociology20(4): 459–81.
19.
FranklinC.H. (1984) ‘Issue Preferences, Socialization, and the Evolution of Party Identification’, American Journal of Political Science28(3): 459–78.
20.
GirmaS. (2000) ‘A Quasi-Differencing Approach to Dynamic Modelling from a Time Series of Independent Cross-Sections’, Journal of Econometrics98(2): 365–83.
21.
GoerresA.TepeM. (2010) ‘Age-based Self-interest, Intergenerational Solidarity and the Welfare State: A Comparative Analysis of Older People’s Attitudes towards Public Childcare in 12 OECD Countries’, European Journal of Political Research49(6): 818–51.
22.
IversenT.SoskiceD. (2001) ‘An Asset Theory of Social Policy Preferences’, American Political Science Review95(4): 875–93.
23.
IversenT.SoskiceD. (2009) ‘Distribution and Redistribution: The Shadow of the Ninteenth Century’, World Politics61(3): 438–86.
24.
JakobsenT.G. (2010) ‘Public Versus Private: The Conditional Effect of State Policy and Institutional Trust on Mass Opinion’, European Sociological Review26(3): 307–18.
25.
JægerM.M. (2006a) ‘What Makes People Support Public Responsibility for Welfare Provision: Self-interest or Political Ideology? A Longitudinal Approach’, Acta Sociologica49(3): 321–38.
26.
JægerM.M. (2006b) ‘Welfare Regimes and Attitudes towards Redistribution: The Regime Hypothesis Revisited,’ European Sociological Review22(2): 157–70.
27.
KangasO. (1997) ‘Self-Interest and the Common Good: The Impact of Norms, Selfishness and Context in Social Policy Opinions’, Journal of Socio-Economics26(5): 475–494.
28.
KenworthyL.McCallL. (2008) ‘Inequality, Public Opinion, and Redistribution’, Socio-Economic Review6(1): 35–68.
29.
LinosK.WestM. (2003) ‘Self-interest, Social Beliefs, and Attitudes to Redistribution: Re-addressing the Issue of Cross-national Variation’, European Sociological Review19(4): 393–409.
30.
LübkerM. (2007) ‘Inequality and the Demand for Redistribution: Are the Assumptions of the New Growth Theory Valid?’, Socio-Economic Review5(1): 117–48.
31.
LupuN.PontussonJ. (2011) ‘The Structure of Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution’, American Political Science Review105(2): 316–36.
32.
MeltzerA.H.RichardS.F. (1981) ‘A Rational Theory of the Size of Government’, Journal of Political Economy89(5): 914–27.
33.
MoeneK.O.WallersteinM. (2001) ‘Inequality, Social Insurance, and Redistribution’, American Political Science Review95(4): 859–74.
34.
MoeneK.O.WallersteinM. (2003) ‘Earnings Inequality and Welfare Spending: A Disaggregated Analysis’, World Politics55(4): 485–516.
35.
OorschotW.v. (2002) ‘Individual Motives for Contributing to Welfare Benefits in the Netherlands’, Policy and Politics30(1): 31–46.
36.
RehmP. (2009) ‘Risks and Redistribution: An Individual-Level Analysis’, Comparative Political Studies42(7): 855–81.
37.
SihvoT.UusitaloH. (1995) ‘Economic Crises and Support for the Welfare State in Finland 1975–1993’, Acta Sociologica38(3): 251–62.
38.
SvallforsS. (1997) ‘Worlds of Welfare and Attitudes to Redistribution: A Comparison of Eight Western Nations’, European Sociological Review13(3): 283–304.
39.
SvallforsS. (2004) ‘Class, Attitudes and the Welfare State: Sweden in Comparative Perspective’, Social Policy and Administration38(2): 119–38.
40.
SvallforsS. (2008) ‘The Generational Contract in Sweden: Age-specific Attitudes to Age-related Policies’, Policy and Politics36(3): 381–96.
41.
TreimanD.J.GanzeboomH. (2000) ‘The Fourth Generation of Social Mobility Research’, in QuahS.SalesA. (eds), The International Handbook of Sociology. London: SAGE.
42.
United National University – World Institute for Development Economics Research (2008) World Income Inequality Database, Version 2c May 2008. Jingumae: United National University – World Institute for Development Economics Research. Available at www.wider.unu.edu/research/Database/en_GB/database/.
43.
VerbeekM. (1995) ‘Pseudo-Panel Data’, in MatyasL.SevestreP. (eds), The Econometrics of Panel Data: A Handbook of the Theory with Applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
44.
WooldridgeJ.M. (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
World Bank (2011) Social Expenditure and Fiscal Federalism in Russia. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
