IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/333719.html

The relevance of meritocratic beliefs for redistributive preferences increases with income

Author

Listed:
  • Pañeda-Fernández, Irene
  • Kamphorst, Jonne
  • van de Rijt, Arnout
  • Battu, Balaraju

Abstract

A leading explanation for why in democratic societies the rich are not taxed more is that meritocratic beliefs breed tolerance for inequality. We problematize this account by claiming that, unlike the rich, the poor support greater redistribution regardless of how meritocratic they perceive society to be. The claim is tested using a cross-national survey and a preregistered experimental game that exogenized both income and perceptions of meritocratic fairness. Analysis of both survey and experimental data supports the proposed interaction effect between income and perceived meritocratic fairness on demand for redistribution. We conclude that while meritocratic beliefs can explain why the rich do not support more redistribution, it fails to explain the poor’s inequality acceptance.

Suggested Citation

  • Pañeda-Fernández, Irene & Kamphorst, Jonne & van de Rijt, Arnout & Battu, Balaraju, 2026. "The relevance of meritocratic beliefs for redistributive preferences increases with income," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 134, pages 1-12.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:333719
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2025.103294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/333719/1/Full-text-article-Paneda-Fernandez-et-al-The-relevance.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2025.103294?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruben Durante & Louis Putterman & Joël Weele, 2014. "Preferences For Redistribution And Perception Of Fairness: An Experimental Study," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 1059-1086, August.
    2. Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
    3. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 699-746.
    4. Alexander W. Cappelen & James Konow & Erik Ø. Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2016. "Just Luck: An Experimental Study of Risk-Taking and Fairness: Erratum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(2), pages 476-477, February.
    5. Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri Drange Hole & Erik Ø Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2007. "The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 818-827, June.
    6. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Henderson, Austin, 2018. "Experimental methods: Measuring effort in economics experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 74-87.
    7. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    8. Lowes, Sara & Nunn, Nathan, 2025. "Lab Experiments in Developing Country Contexts," CEPR Discussion Papers 20390, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    9. Christina Starmans & Mark Sheskin & Paul Bloom, 2017. "Why people prefer unequal societies," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(4), pages 1-7, April.
    10. Thomas Piketty, 1995. "Social Mobility and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 551-584.
    11. 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.
    12. Alberto Alesina & George-Marios Angeletos, 2005. "Fairness and Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 960-980, September.
    13. Menezes, C & Geiss, C & Tressler, J, 1980. "Increasing Downside Risk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 921-932, December.
    14. Ruben Durante & Louis Putterman & Joël Weele, 2014. "Preferences For Redistribution And Perception Of Fairness: An Experimental Study," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 1059-1086, August.
    15. Yotam Margalit, 2019. "Economic Insecurity and the Causes of Populism, Reconsidered," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(4), pages 152-170, Fall.
    16. Barr, Abigail & Burns, Justine & Miller, Luis & Shaw, Ingrid, 2015. "Economic status and acknowledgement of earned entitlement," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 55-68.
    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. Bonnet, Julien & Ciani, Emanuele & Grimalda, Gianluca & Murtin, Fabrice & Pipke, David, 2025. "What explains preferences for redistribution? Evidence from an international survey," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    2. Roth, Christopher & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2018. "Experienced inequality and preferences for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 251-262.
    3. Pei-Hsun Hsieh & Reuben Kline, 2025. "Deservingness heuristics drive redistributive choices, but weights on recipient effort vary," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Vanessa Valero, 2022. "Redistribution and beliefs about the source of income inequality," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 876-901, June.
    5. Schwaiger, Rene & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Kleinlercher, Daniel & Weitzel, Utz, 2022. "Unequal opportunities, social groups, and redistribution: Evidence from Germany," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    6. Vanessa Valero, 2021. "Redistribution and beliefs about the source of income inequality," Post-Print hal-04739469, HAL.
    7. Michele Bernasconi & Enrico Longo & Valeria Maggian, 2023. "When merit breeds luck (or not): an experimental study on distributive justice," Working Papers 2023:02, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    8. Akbaş, Merve & Ariely, Dan & Yuksel, Sevgi, 2019. "When is inequality fair? An experiment on the effect of procedural justice and agency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 114-127.
    9. Bertocchi, Graziella & Dimico, Arcangelo & Tedeschi, Gian Luca, 2026. "Ancestral Inequality and Preferences for Redistribution," CEPR Discussion Papers 21490, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    10. Cappelen, Alexander W. & de Haan, Thomas & Tungodden, Bertil, 2024. "Fairness and limited information: Are people Bayesian meritocrats?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    11. Roberto Brunetti & Gianluca Grimalda & Maria Marino, 2025. "Trickle-Down Economics, Merit, and Redistribution: An Experiment with the Poorest and Richest US Americans," IREA Working Papers 202518, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics.
    12. Bohmann, Sandra & Kalleitner, Fabian, 2023. "Subjective Inequity Aversion: Unfair Inequality, Subjective Well-Being, and Preferences for Redistribution," SocArXiv g8arw, Center for Open Science.
    13. Grimalda, Gianluca & Kar, Anirban & Proto, Eugenio, "undated". "Everyone Wants a Chance : Initial Positions and Fairness in Ultimatum Games," Economic Research Papers 270638, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    14. Reutzel, Fabian, 2024. "The grass is always greener on the other side: (Unfair) inequality and support for democracy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    15. Ilpo Kauppinen & Panu Poutvaara, 2019. "Preferences for Redistribution and International Migration," ifo Working Paper Series 283, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    16. Francesco Farina & Stefania Ottone & Ferruccio Ponzano, 2019. "On the Collective Choice among Models of Social Protection: An Experimental Study," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, October.
    17. Matías Strehl Pessina, 2022. "Sectores de altos ingresos y preferencias por redistribución," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 22-15, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    18. Eisenkopf, Gerald & Fischbacher, Urs & Föllmi-Heusi, Franziska, 2013. "Unequal opportunities and distributive justice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 51-61.
    19. 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.
    20. Strehl-Pessina, Matías & Bergolo, Marcelo & Leites, Martin, 2025. "Beyond income: Understanding preferences for redistribution among the top 1%," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:zbw:espost:333719. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.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.