Class 1: Introduction

Question 1

Cavaillé: What puzzle does Cavaillé seek to explain?

Answer 1

Why economic inequality has increased, but support for redistribution has remained the same or decreased

Question 2

Cavaillé: How is income inequality defined?

Answer 2

Some people receive a share of income that is larger than their share of the population, while others receive a share that is smaller

Question 3

Cavaillé: What is the benchmark model and what does it predict?

Answer 3

Predicts reactions to inequality:

1. When inequality gets bigger, more people should support redistribution
2. Support will be larger among the poor than the rich

Question 4

Cavaillé: How does Cavaillé then explain the puzzle between inequality and support for redistribution?

Answer 4

Support for redistributive policies are shaped not only by material self-interest, but also fairness reasoning

Since people are not always well-informed and redistribution is a low stakes issue in welfare states, it is easier for people to rely on fairness principles, even if this is disconnected from your own benefits

Question 5

Cavaillé: What is fairness reasoning?

Answer 5

The thought process through which individuals act as if a third-party judge ruling on the fairness of a given situation and acting to maximize fairness accordingly

Question 6

Cavaillé: What are the two fairness norms and how do they relate to redistribution

Answer 6

Proportionality norm: Individuals rewards should be proportional to effort and talent -> aligns with redistribution from policies

Reciprocity norm: Cooperative behavior should be rewarded more than uncooperative behavior -> aligns more with redistribution to policies (social programs)

Question 7

Cavaillé: How do the two fairness norms explain the puzzle of lack of support for redistribution?

Answer 7

Proportionality norm is partly self-serving (losers tend to interpret rules as fair and vice versa) and correlates with income

Whereas reciprocity is more intuitive reasoning about social dilemmas, disconnected from own experience, and correlated with moral worldviews

The policy preferences that people settle on are a function of the type of fairness belief they start from as well as the policy’s effect on their own disposible income (self-interest)

Question 8

Cavaillé: Which income group is more likely to support redistribution?

Answer 8

High-income respondents - more likely to be believe that redistribution policies benefit deserving recipients and more likely to translate these beliefs into support, despite not being in line with their objective material self-interest. Lower-income groups are less likely to translate fairness beliefs into support

Question 9

Cavaillé: How can attitudinal changes to income inequality be explained?

Answer 9

Change in share of population who give self-interested answer rather than fair answer -> activated by fiscal stress

Change in their fairness norm people rely on when answering survey -> activated by survey design

Change in fairness beliefs -> activated by party competition dynamics

Question 10

Rosenbluth & Weir: What is the age of fracture?

Answer 10

Since late 20th century, broad social, economic, and political solidarities have broken apart, and political fragmentation has deepened inequalities and a pervasive sense of insecurity created fertile ground for populist policies

Question 11

Rosenbluth & Weir: What are the 3 core lines of fracture?

Answer 11

People: The social lense through which people perceive and experience insecurity

Places: Separates winners and losers of glob. and divides population by race/ethnicity

Politics: Shapes the social risks that different groups face

Question 12

Rosenbluth & Weir: What has created these new insecurities?

Answer 12

Technology and (int.) trade make previously secure jobs disappear, and economic stress has not been shouldered equally

Question 13

Rosenbluth & Weir: The 3 core lines of fracture explain…

Answer 13

Why the political systems in liberal democracies have found it difficult to build broad solidarities to enact policy interventions that deliver prosperity and economic security for their citizens -

Question 14

Rosenbluth & Weir: How has people fractured?

Answer 14

The social lenses through which people interpret rising inequality and insecurity produce different interpretations of what has been lost, who is to blame, and what should be done about it

Deepening divisions has opened opportunities for populism: declining social status, nostalgia for lost past, importance of education in economy, public/private division, racial stereotypes explain deservingness attitudes, lack of gender solidarity across income-groups

Question 15

Rosenbluth & Weir: How has place fractured?

Answer 15

The rural-urban divide has deepened, with urban areas benefiting from knowledge econ., spatial separation across racial lines, segregation of the affluent from the poor, and wealthy people locking in their advantage and blocking less affluent residents from influence

Question 16

Rosenbluth & Weir: How has politics fractured?

Answer 16

New insecurities have robbed the political center of their once reliable voters -> disappearing jobs, fewer industrial jobs weakening unions and the left, racialized group identities dampen support for redistribution for others

and great wealth has been used to amplify the voices at the top

Question 17

Rosenbluth & Weir: What is the hard-won lesson of the past decades?

Answer 17

Solidarity must be actively built, nurtured and updated if it is to endure through strong labor unions, electoral reforms, and new social protections

Question 18

Gilbert: What was social welfare in the US initially intended for?

Answer 18

War widows

Question 19

Gilbert: Which 1996 US reform fundamentally changes US welfare policy and how?

Answer 19

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) was a step from temporary welfare to temporary work-conditioned welfare, shifting expectations that social assistance is not a social right, but a benefit

Question 20

Gilbert: What 4 core policy transformations under TANF cut away the safety net?

Answer 20

1. Linking welfare to personal responsibility, such as learning English, going to school, respecting the law etc.
2. Making welfare conditioned on work
3. Time limits for receiving cash benefits - 5 years of lifetime
4. Ending federal pledge to contribute to the financial support for all eligible people in poverty -> now provide fixed sum to states

Question 21

Gilbert: What 4 factors explain this change in US welfare policy from social right to personal responsibility?

Answer 21

1. Changing structure of family life with more unmarried women with children, divorced women etc. -> welfare seen as undermining morality and responsible behavior rather than helping poor widows
2. Normative shift that dulled sympathy for stay at home mothers
3. Welfare support was often higher than salary of low-income workers, increasing unfairness perceptions
4. Earlier, softer legislation did not stop increase in welfare cases, leading to belief that welfare benefits dampen incentive to work full time

Question 22

Gilbert: What does this development mean for the social contract in the US?

Answer 22

New social contract is being forged about the right to public assistance, changing balance between entitlement and conditionality

Question 23

Class notes: What is a social policy?

Answer 23

A policy intended to reply to market risks, protecting people from different exposures, risks, and inequality

Question 24

Class notes: What are 5 conflicts surrounding social policies?

Answer 24

1. Eligibility
2. Deservingness perceptions -> often based on ability to contribute (elderly) or innocence (children, the sick, disabled, widows) rather than need
3. Giving money or taking away money
4. Kinds of redistribution - for example, building new apartments, rental assistance, or tax reductions for homeowners
5. What kinds of risks should you be protected from?

Question 25

Class notes: What is a social contract?

Answer 25

As a society, we have agreed to a set of rules, and in exchange for obeying, the government intervenes in the market and offers protection from risks and redistribution

Question 26

Class notes: What is the importance of citizenship in social policies?

Answer 26

Citizens are resources, who can work and pay taxes and adhere to social norms and rules in order to receive something in the social contract. Government does not want to invest in someone who leaves the country shortly after

Question 27

Becker: What is the paradox that Becker identifies regarding redistribution?

Answer 27

Despite increasing economic inequalities, government redistribution has not increased along with it

Question 28

Becker: What are the 3 different ways to conceptualize economic inequality?

Answer 28

Income vs. Wealth Horizontal (individuals) vs. vertical (horizontal) Local vs. national vs. international

Question 29

Becker: What 3 predictions does the RMR model make regarding redistribution?

Answer 29

1. Support for redistribution decreases with a person's income 2. Support for redistribution increases with the level of inequality 3. Governments implement the tax rate preferred by the median voter

Question 30

Becker: What factors would influence pressure for a government to redistribute?

Answer 30

1. Self-interest 2. Inequality perceptions (people often underestimate economic inequality) 3. Contextual factors, such as social mobility and trust in government

Question 31

Becker: How does he explain the paradox of redistribution?

Answer 31

The rich exert a stronger influence on politics than others, preventing rising inequality from translating into demand for redistribution

Question 32

Becker: Why do the rich exert a stronger influence on politics? (4)

Answer 32

1. Lack of electoral responsiveness (=the degree to which policies produced correspond to the demands of its citizens): Policies more closely correspond to the demands of the rich 2. Incongruence in the political opinions of citizens and elected officials -> elected officials' opinions tend to align with the rich 3. Lack of descriptive representation of the working class and over-representation of millionaires 4. Individuals have unequal influence -> while lower-income individuals are less likely to vote, the rich also have control over mass media, can donate to political campaigns and pay for lobbying

Question 33

Becker: In other words, why does the RMR model not hold?

Answer 33

It only holds in a situation where all people are being heard equally -> but in reality, most systems only hear the voices of those who prefer economic inequality

Question 34

Becker: What does he say about inequality globally?

Answer 34

Most inequality exists between countries, which should be addressed by intergovernmental/international redistribution to avoid getting trapped in a race to the bottom of lowering taxes and regulation to attract the wealthy