The Two Facets of Social Policy Preferences
Open accessAbstract
Most political economy models start from the assumption that economic self-interest is a key predictor of support for income redistribution. A growing literature, in contrast, emphasizes the role of “other-oriented” concerns, such as social solidarity or affinity for the poor. These frameworks generate distinct, often conflicting predictions about variation in mass attitudes toward redistribution. We argue that this tension is in part an artifact of conceptualizing demand for redistribution as unidimensional and propose distinguishing between redistribution conceived as taking from the “rich” and redistribution conceived as giving to the “poor.” These two facets of redistribution prime different individual motives: self-oriented income maximization on the one hand and other-oriented social affinity with welfare beneficiaries on the other. We find strong evidence for this framework using British longitudinal survey data and cross-sectional data from four advanced industrial countries. We discuss the implications for studying changes in mass support for redistributive social policies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the British case, while public support for the general principle that the state should reduce inequality remained stable, attitudes hardened towards specific recipients, including the unemployed, single mothers and immigrants.
“Cavaillé and Trump (2015) argue that, at least in the British case, while there has been little change in public support for the general principle that the state should reduce inequality (what they call ' redistribution from ' ), there has been a hardening of attitudes towards specific recipients (what they call ' redistribution to ' ), including the unemployed, single mothers and immigrants.”
From Solidarity in diverse societies: beyond neoliberal multiculturalism and welfare chauvinism (2015) · cites this paper as Cavaillé and Trump (2015)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 75 · Cited by 241
- Authors
- Cavaillé, C., & Trump, K.-S.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Politics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 146-160
- ISSN
- 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2508
- OpenAlex
- W3124418717
- Cited by
- 241
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 67.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
- Keywords
- social policy preferences, income redistribution, public support for redistribution, self-interest, social solidarity, public attitudes, advanced industrial countries
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review