IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/inq/inqwps/ecineq2019-494.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A false divide? Correcting beliefs about inequality aligns preferences for redistribution between right and left-wing voters

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Hoy

    (Australian National University)

  • Russell Toth

    (University of Sydney, Australia)

Abstract

Are differences in preferences for redistribution between right- and left-wing voters amplified because of misperceptions of inequality? To address this question, we conduct a nationally representative, randomized survey experiment of 3,402 Australians, in which respondents are informed about either the level of national inequality and economic mobility, their position in the national income distribution, their household income per capita, or given no information. We show that correcting misperceptions of inequality reduces the gap between right- and left-wing voters‘ level of support for redistribution by at least 24 percent. This is predominantly due to right-wing voters becoming more supportive of redistribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Hoy & Russell Toth, 2019. "A false divide? Correcting beliefs about inequality aligns preferences for redistribution between right and left-wing voters," Working Papers 494, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    • Handle: RePEc:inq:inqwps:ecineq2019-494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ecineq.org/milano/WP/ECINEQ2019-494.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Hoy & Franziska Mager, 2019. "Why are relatively poor people not more supportive of redistribution? Evidence from a survey experiment across 10 countries," Working Papers 489, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    2. Roland Benabou & Efe A. Ok, 2001. "Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(2), pages 447-487.
    3. David Card & Alexandre Mas & Enrico Moretti & Emmanuel Saez, 2012. "Inequality at Work: The Effect of Peer Salaries on Job Satisfaction," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2981-3003, October.
    4. Mounir Karadja & Johanna Mollerstrom & David Seim, 2017. "Richer (and Holier) Than Thou? The Effect of Relative Income Improvements on Demand for Redistribution," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(2), pages 201-212, May.
    5. Bublitz, Elisabeth, 2016. "Misperceptions of income distributions: Cross-country evidence from a randomized survey experiment," HWWI Research Papers 178, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    6. Cruces, Guillermo & Perez-Truglia, Ricardo & Tetaz, Martin, 2013. "Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 100-112.
    7. Meltzer, Allan H & Richard, Scott F, 1981. "A Rational Theory of the Size of Government," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 914-927, October.
    8. Corak, Miles, 2016. "Inequality from Generation to Generation: The United States in Comparison," IZA Discussion Papers 9929, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    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. Roberto Iacono & Marco Ranaldi, 2021. "The nexus between perceptions of inequality and preferences for redistribution," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(1), pages 97-114, March.
    2. Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M. & Krozer, Alice & Ramírez-Álvarez, Aurora A. & de la Torre, Rodolfo & Velez-Grajales, Roberto, 2022. "Perceptions of inequality and social mobility in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Windsteiger, Lisa, 2022. "The redistributive consequences of segregation and misperceptions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    4. Kristoffer Balle Hvidberg & Claus Thustrup Kreiner & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2021. "Social Position and Fairness Views," CESifo Working Paper Series 8928, CESifo.
    5. Kristoffer B Hvidberg & Claus T Kreiner & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2023. "Social Positions and Fairness Views on Inequality," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(6), pages 3083-3118.
    6. Christopher Hoy & Franziska Mager, 2019. "Why are relatively poor people not more supportive of redistribution? Evidence from a survey experiment across 10 countries," Working Papers 489, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    7. Eiji Yamamura, 2021. "Information of income position and its impact on perceived tax burden and preference for redistribution: An Internet Survey Experiment," Papers 2106.11537, arXiv.org.
    8. Nora Yuqian Chen & Yuchen Huang & Zhexun Fred Mo, 2023. "Money is Justice: Experimental Evidence on Non-meritocratic Redistributive Preferences in China," Working Papers halshs-03496033, HAL.
    9. 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.
    10. Nora Yuqian Chen & Yuchen Huang & Zhexun Fred Mo, 2023. "Money is Justice: Experimental Evidence on Non-meritocratic Redistributive Preferences in China," PSE Working Papers halshs-03496033, HAL.
    11. Keefer, Philip & Scartascini, Carlos & Vlaicu, Razvan, 2022. "Demand-side determinants of public spending allocations: Voter trust, risk and time preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    12. Cruces, Guillermo & Perez-Truglia, Ricardo & Tetaz, Martin, 2013. "Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 100-112.
    13. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    14. Juliana Londoño-Vélez, 2022. "The Impact of Diversity on Perceptions of Income Distribution and Preferences for Redistribution," NBER Working Papers 30386, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2020. "The Effects of Income Transparency on Well-Being: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1019-1054, April.
    16. Pi, Jiancai & Zhang, Pengqing, 2021. "Redistribution and wage inequality," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 510-523.
    17. Díez-Alonso, Daniel, 2020. "Taxpayer Bias in Perceived Income Distributions," MPRA Paper 116775, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Jan 2021.
    18. Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2020. "Educational inequality and public policy preferences: Evidence from representative survey experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    19. Fehr, Ernst & Epper, Thomas & Senn, Julien, 2022. "Other-Regarding Preferences and Redistributive Politics," IZA Discussion Papers 15088, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Fehr Ernst & Epper Thomas & Senn Julien, 2020. "Social preferences and redistributive politics," ECON - Working Papers 339, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Aug 2023.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Inequality; social mobility; redistribution; political economy.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • O50 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - General
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies

    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:inq:inqwps:ecineq2019-494. 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: Maria Ana Lugo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecineea.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.