Despite decades of rising inequality, there has been little observed increase in American public support for redistribution. This is puzzling because majorities of Americans profess to be aware of and opposed to high inequality. I argue that this lack of responsiveness is not due to public ignorance of, nor apathy toward, inequality but rather, in part, to negative feelings toward immigrants, a growing, politically salient, and negatively stereotyped “out-group” that is widely viewed as a target of redistributive spending. To test this, I combine data on state-level income inequality with survey data from the 1992 to 2016 Cumulative ANES. I find that growing inequality can prompt support for redistribution but that this depends, in part, on peoples’ immigration attitudes. Overall, these results suggest that immigration has important implications for economic redistribution in an era of high, and rising inequality.
AbrajanoM.HajnalZ. L. (2015). White backlash: Immigration, race, and American politics. Princeton University Press.
2.
AbrajanoM. A.HajnalZ.HassellH. J. G. (2017). Media framing and partisan identity: The case of immigration coverage and white macropartisanship. Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics, 2(1), 5–34.
3.
AlesinaA.GlaeserE. L. (2004). Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of difference. Oxford University Press.
4.
AlesinaA.La FerraraE. L. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5−6), 897–931.
5.
AlesinaA.MianoA.StantchevaS. (2018). Immigration and redistribution (Working Paper No. 24733). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w24733.pdf
6.
AvdagicS.SavageL. (2019). Negativity bias: The impact of framing of immigration on welfare state support in Germany, Sweden, and the UK. British Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000395
7.
BartelsL. M. (2016). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
8.
BoudreauC.MacKenzieS. A. (2018). Wanting what is fair: How party cues and information about income inequality affect public support for taxes. Journal of Politics, 80(2), 367–381.
BroockmanD. E.FerensteinG.MalhotraN. (2019). Predispositions and the political behavior of American economic elites: Evidence from technology entrepreneurs. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 212–233.
11.
BroockmanD. E.SkovronC. (2018). Bias in perceptions of public opinion among political elites. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 542–563.
12.
CarnahanD.BerganD. E.LeeS. (2020). Do corrective effects last? Results from a Longitudinal experiment on beliefs toward immigration in the U.S. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09591-9
13.
CaugheyD.WarshawC. (2017). Policy preferences and policy change: Dynamic responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 249–266.
14.
ChavezL. (2013). The latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation (2nd ed.). Stanford University Press.
15.
ChettyR.GruskyD.HellM.HendrenN.ManducaR.NarangJ. (2017). The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940. Science, 356(6336), 398–406.
16.
CondonM.WichowskyA. (2020). Inequality in the social mind: Social comparison and support for redistribution. Journal of Politics, 82(1), 149–161.
17.
CrepazM. M. L. (2008). Trust beyond borders: Immigration, the welfare state, and identity in modern societies. University of Michigan Press.
18.
EllisC.StimsonJ. A. (2012). Ideology in America. Cambridge University Press.
19.
EriksonR. S.MacKuenM. B.StimsonJ. A. (2002). The macro polity. Cambridge University Press.
20.
FarrisE. M.MohamadH. S. (2018). Picturing immigration: How the media criminalizes immigrants. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 6(4), 814–824.
21.
FeldmanS. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 416–440.
22.
FilindraA. (2013). Immigrant social policy in the American States: Race politics and state TANF and medicaid eligibility rules for legal permanent residents. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 13(1), 26–48.
23.
FloresR. D. (2018). Can elites shape public attitudes toward immigrants?: Evidence from the 2016 US Presidential election. Social Forces, 96(4), 1649–1690.
24.
FloresR. D.SchachterA. (2018). Who are the ‘illegals’? The social construction of illegality in the United States. American Sociological Review, 83(5), 839–868.
25.
FoxC. (2004). The changing color of welfare? How whites’ attitudes toward latinos influence support for welfare. American Journal of Sociology, 110(3), 580–625.
26.
FrankoW. W. (2016). Political context, government redistribution, and the public’s response to growing economic inequality. Journal of Politics, 78(4), 957–963.
27.
FrankoW. W. (2017). Understanding public perceptions of growing economic inequality. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 17(3), 319–348.
28.
FrankoW.TolbertC. J.WitkoC. (2013). Inequality, self-interest, and public support for ‘Robin Hood’ tax policies. Political Research Quarterly, 66(4), 923–937.
29.
GarandJ. C. (2010). Income inequality, party polarization, and roll-call voting in the US senate. Journal of Politics, 72(4), 1109–1128.
30.
GarandJ. C.XuP.DavisB. C. (2017). Immigration attitudes and support for the welfare state in the American mass public. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 146–162.
31.
GilensM. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. University of Chicago Press.
32.
GilensM. (2009). Preference gaps and inequality in representation. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(2), 335–341.
33.
GilensM. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton University Press.
34.
GilensM.PageB. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581.
35.
GilensM.ThalA. (2018). Doing well and doing good? How concern for others shapes policy preferences among affluent Americans. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(2), 209–230.
HackerJ. S.PiersonP. (2010). Winner-take-all politics: How Washington made the rich richer–and turned its back on the middle class. Simon & Schuster.
38.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2015). The hidden american immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548.
39.
HaselswerdtJ. (2020). Social welfare attitudes and immigrants as a target population: Experimental evidence. Perspective on Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720002406
40.
HawesD. P.McCreaA. M. (2018). Give us your tired, your poor and we might buy them dinner: Social capital, immigration, and welfare generosity in the American States. Political Research Quarterly, 71(2), 347–360.
41.
HayesT. J. (2014). Do citizens link attitudes with preferences? Economic inequality and government spending in the ‘new gilded age’. Social Science Quarterly, 95(2), 468–485.
42.
HaynesC.MerollaJ.RamakrishnanS. K. (2016). Framing immigrants: News coverage, public opinion, and policy. Russell Sage Foundation.
43.
HeroR. E. (2010). Immigration and social policy in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 445–468.
44.
HeroR. E.PreuhsR. R. (2007). Immigration and the evolving American welfare state: Examining policies in the US States. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 498–517.
45.
Hertel-FernandezA.MildenbergerM.StokesL. C. (2019). Legislative staff and representation in congress. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 1–18.
46.
HetheringtonM. J.RudolphT. J. (2015). Why Washington won’t work: Polarization, political trust, and the governing crisis. University of Chicago Press.
47.
HopkinsD. J. (2010). Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 40–60.
48.
HopkinsD. J.SidesJ.CitrinJ. (2019). The muted consequences of correct information about immigration. Journal of Politics, 81(1), 315–320.
49.
HusseyL. S.Person-MerkowitzS. (2013). The changing role of race in social welfare attitude formation: Partisan divides over undocumented immigrants and social welfare policy. Political Research Quarterly, 66(3), 572–584.
50.
JardinaA. E. (2019). White identity politics. Cambridge University Press.
51.
JohnstonC. D.NewmanB. J. (2016). Economic inequality and US public policy mood across space and time. American Politics Research, 44(1), 164–191.
52.
KamC. D.KinderD. R. (2009). Us versus them: Ethnocentric foundations of American opinion. University of Chicago Press.
53.
KamC. D.NamY. (2008). Reaching out or pulling back: Macroeconomic conditions and public support for social welfare spending. Political Behavior, 30(2), 223–258.
54.
KellyN. J.EnnsP. K. (2010). Inequality and the dynamics of public opinion: The self-reinforcing link between economic inequality and mass preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 54(4), 855–870.
55.
KinderD. R.SandersL. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. University of Chicago Press.
56.
KluegelJ. R.SmithE. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what ought to be. Routledge.
57.
KuziemkoI.NortonM. I.SaezE.StantchevaS. (2015). How elastic are preferences for redistribution? Evidence from randomized survey experiments. American Economic Review, 105(4), 1478–1508.
58.
LenzG. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. University of Chicago Press.
59.
LuttigM. (2013). The structure of inequality and Americans’ Attitudes toward redistribution. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(3), 811–821.
60.
MacdonaldD. (2019). Trust in government and the American public’s responsiveness to rising inequality. Political Research Quarterly, 73(4), 790–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919856110
61.
MacdonaldD. (2020). Class attitudes, political knowledge, and support for redistribution in an era of inequality. Social Science Quarterly, 101(2), 960–977.
62.
McCallL. (2013). The undeserving rich: American beliefs about inequality, opportunity, and redistribution. Cambridge University Press.
63.
McCallL.BurkD.Laperri’ereM.RichesonJ. A. (2017). Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans’ opportunity beliefs and policy support. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(36), 9593–9598.
64.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2016). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
65.
MeltzerA. H.RichardS. F. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914–927.
66.
MijsJ. J. B. (2019). The paradox of inequality: Income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand. Socio-Economic Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwy051
67.
NewmanB. J. (2013). Acculturating contexts and anglo opposition to immigration in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 374–390.
68.
NewmanB. J. (2019). Inequality growth and economic policy liberalism: An updated test of a classic theory. Journal of Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1086/706598
69.
NewmanB. J.JohnstonC. D.LownP. L. (2015). False consciousness or class awareness? Local income inequality, personal economic position, and belief in American meritocracy. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 326–340.
70.
NewmanB. J.ShahS.LauterbachE. (2018). Who sees an hourglass? Assessing citizens’ perception of local economic inequality. Research & Politics, 5(3), 1–7.
71.
NewmanB. J.TetenP. (2020). Inequality federalism and economic self-interest in subnational progressive tax politics. Political Research Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920905111
72.
O’BrianN. A. (2019). Income inequality and congressional republican position taking, 1913-2013. Journal of Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1086/704787
73.
O’SheaT.RamónC. (2018). Immigrants and public benefits: What does the research say?Bipartisan Policy Center. Retrieved November, 2018 from https://www.immigrationresearch.org/node/2476
74.
PageB. I.BartelsL. M.SeawrightJ. (2013). Democracy and the policy preferences of wealthy Americans. Perspectives on Politics, 11(1), 51–73.
75.
PageB. I.JacobsL. R. (2009). Class war? What Americans really think about economic inequality. University of Chicago Press.
PikettyT.SaezE.ZucmanG. (2018). Distributional national accounts: Methods and estimates for the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(2), 553–609.
78.
PistonS. (2018). Class attitudes in America sympathy for the poor, resentment of the rich, and political implications. Cambridge University Press.
79.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1960). The semisovereign people. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
80.
SchlozmanK. L.VerbaS.BradyH. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton University Press.
81.
SoltF. (2010). Does economic inequality depress electoral participation? Testing the schattschneider hypothesis. Political Behavior, 32(2), 285–301.
82.
SoltF.HuY.HudsonK.SongJ.YuD. (2017). Economic inequality and class consciousness. Journal of Politics, 79(3), 1079–1083.
83.
StiglitzJ. E. (2012). The price of inequality. W.W. Norton & Company.
84.
SuhayE.KlašnjaM.RiveroG. (2020). Ideology of affluence: Explanations for inequality and political attitudes. Journal of Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1086/709672
85.
ThalA. (2020). The desire for social status and economic conservatism among affluent Americans. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 426–442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000893
86.
TrumpK. (2018). Income inequality influences perceptions of legitimate income differences. British Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 929–952.
87.
UslanerE. M.BrownM. (2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. American Politics Research, 33(6), 868–894.
88.
ValentinoN. A.BraderT.JardinaA. E. (2013). Immigration opposition among us whites: General ethnocentrism or media priming of attitudes about latinos?Political Psychology, 34(2), 149–166.
89.
VelezY. R.LavineH. (2017). Racial diversity and the dynamics of authoritarianism. Journal of Politics, 79(2), 519–533.
90.
VolschoT. W.KellyN. J. (2012). The rise of the super-rich: Power resources, taxes, financial markets, and the dynamics of the Top 1 percent, 1949 to 2008. American Sociological Review, 77(5), 679–699.
91.
WeberC. R.LavineH.HuddyL.FedericoC. M. (2014). Placing racial stereotypes in context: Social desirability and the politics of racial hostility. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 63–78.
92.
WettsR.WillerR. (2018). Privilege on the precipice: Perceived racial status threats lead white Americans to oppose welfare programs. Social Forces, 97(2), 793–822.
93.
WinterN. J. G. (2006). Beyond welfare: Framing and the racialization of white opinion on social security. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 400–420.
94.
WrightG. (2018). The political implications of American concerns about economic inequality. Political Behavior, 40(2), 321–343.
95.
XuP. (2017). Compensation or retrenchment? The paradox of immigration and public welfare spending in the American States. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 17(1), 76–104.
96.
XuP.GarandJ. C. (2010). Economic context and Americans’ perceptions of income inequality. Social Science Quarterly, 91(5), 1220–1241.
97.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge 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.
