{"title":"美国人想要什么形式的再分配?了解对政策收益-成本权衡的偏好","authors":"Sam Zacher","doi":"10.1177/10659129241260413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Political scientists agree that most Americans are “operationally liberal.” However, economic preferences have traditionally been measured as opinions on public spending, independent from the “costs” of public policies. In reality, redistributive economic policies often impose costs on some actors while delivering benefits to others. When a policy’s costs and benefits are both apparent, what types of redistribution do Americans prefer? This paper’s novel survey evidence shows that preferences for policy benefits are indeed sensitive to which subgroups would bear the policy’s costs (and vice versa). American majorities do support a wide range of redistributive economic policy packages—as long as the wealthy are footing the bill or the costs are hidden. When the size of the group facing the policy cost (e.g., tax) increases, overall support declines. Preference differences between Republicans of varying economic statuses are large, while divisions within the Democratic coalition are subtler but still clear on certain policies. Overall, this paper shows that measuring preferences for a policy's costs (e.g., taxation) are crucial to truly understanding voters’ holistic economic policy demands. Further, the lack of enactment by political elites of the forms of redistribution consistently supported by the public casts research on democratic representation in new light.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Forms of Redistribution Do Americans Want? Understanding Preferences for Policy Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs\",\"authors\":\"Sam Zacher\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10659129241260413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Political scientists agree that most Americans are “operationally liberal.” However, economic preferences have traditionally been measured as opinions on public spending, independent from the “costs” of public policies. In reality, redistributive economic policies often impose costs on some actors while delivering benefits to others. When a policy’s costs and benefits are both apparent, what types of redistribution do Americans prefer? This paper’s novel survey evidence shows that preferences for policy benefits are indeed sensitive to which subgroups would bear the policy’s costs (and vice versa). American majorities do support a wide range of redistributive economic policy packages—as long as the wealthy are footing the bill or the costs are hidden. When the size of the group facing the policy cost (e.g., tax) increases, overall support declines. Preference differences between Republicans of varying economic statuses are large, while divisions within the Democratic coalition are subtler but still clear on certain policies. Overall, this paper shows that measuring preferences for a policy's costs (e.g., taxation) are crucial to truly understanding voters’ holistic economic policy demands. Further, the lack of enactment by political elites of the forms of redistribution consistently supported by the public casts research on democratic representation in new light.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51366,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Research Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Research Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241260413\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241260413","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
What Forms of Redistribution Do Americans Want? Understanding Preferences for Policy Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs
Political scientists agree that most Americans are “operationally liberal.” However, economic preferences have traditionally been measured as opinions on public spending, independent from the “costs” of public policies. In reality, redistributive economic policies often impose costs on some actors while delivering benefits to others. When a policy’s costs and benefits are both apparent, what types of redistribution do Americans prefer? This paper’s novel survey evidence shows that preferences for policy benefits are indeed sensitive to which subgroups would bear the policy’s costs (and vice versa). American majorities do support a wide range of redistributive economic policy packages—as long as the wealthy are footing the bill or the costs are hidden. When the size of the group facing the policy cost (e.g., tax) increases, overall support declines. Preference differences between Republicans of varying economic statuses are large, while divisions within the Democratic coalition are subtler but still clear on certain policies. Overall, this paper shows that measuring preferences for a policy's costs (e.g., taxation) are crucial to truly understanding voters’ holistic economic policy demands. Further, the lack of enactment by political elites of the forms of redistribution consistently supported by the public casts research on democratic representation in new light.
期刊介绍:
Political Research Quarterly (PRQ) is the official journal of the Western Political Science Association. PRQ seeks to publish scholarly research of exceptionally high merit that makes notable contributions in any subfield of political science. The editors especially encourage submissions that employ a mixture of theoretical approaches or multiple methodologies to address major political problems or puzzles at a local, national, or global level. Collections of articles on a common theme or debate, to be published as short symposia, are welcome as well as individual submissions.