收入再分配偏好的矛盾心理研究

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of European Social Policy Pub Date : 2022-01-19 DOI:10.1177/09589287211066469
Ursula Dallinger
{"title":"收入再分配偏好的矛盾心理研究","authors":"Ursula Dallinger","doi":"10.1177/09589287211066469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Increased income inequality, and policies that can limit its further growth, are an important issue for citizens, politicians and the media. Numerous empirical studies have measured political support for redistributive policies by asking whether the government should equalize gaps between rich and poor. They try to discover whether ‘redistributive’ policies are supported by public opinion and are therefore politically feasible. This research note argues that the standard instrument measures diffuse support for more equality, but gives rather vague hints if this support is transformed into a political mandate for redistributive programmes. With regard to the way in which the political demand for state redistribution to reduce income inequality has been raised so far, methodological critique and innovation is largely lacking. This article therefore tests the validity of the standard item. It argues that the conventional measurement only captures a general ‘inclination’ towards the idea of equality. However, since the item phrasing is unspecific, other orientations confound the answers, so that ultimately the predictive power in terms of political behaviour is low. The standard item measures egalitarian preferences with inconsistence. This limits its reliability, so that hardly any conclusions can be drawn regarding voting for left parties or support for redistributive programmes.","PeriodicalId":47919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the ambivalence of preferences for income redistribution: A research note\",\"authors\":\"Ursula Dallinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09589287211066469\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Increased income inequality, and policies that can limit its further growth, are an important issue for citizens, politicians and the media. Numerous empirical studies have measured political support for redistributive policies by asking whether the government should equalize gaps between rich and poor. They try to discover whether ‘redistributive’ policies are supported by public opinion and are therefore politically feasible. This research note argues that the standard instrument measures diffuse support for more equality, but gives rather vague hints if this support is transformed into a political mandate for redistributive programmes. With regard to the way in which the political demand for state redistribution to reduce income inequality has been raised so far, methodological critique and innovation is largely lacking. This article therefore tests the validity of the standard item. It argues that the conventional measurement only captures a general ‘inclination’ towards the idea of equality. However, since the item phrasing is unspecific, other orientations confound the answers, so that ultimately the predictive power in terms of political behaviour is low. The standard item measures egalitarian preferences with inconsistence. This limits its reliability, so that hardly any conclusions can be drawn regarding voting for left parties or support for redistributive programmes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of European Social Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of European Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287211066469\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287211066469","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

收入不平等加剧,以及可能限制其进一步增长的政策,对公民、政治家和媒体来说是一个重要问题。许多实证研究通过询问政府是否应该均衡贫富差距来衡量对再分配政策的政治支持。他们试图发现“再分配”政策是否得到公众舆论的支持,因此在政治上是否可行。这份研究报告认为,标准文书衡量了对更多平等的支持,但如果这种支持转化为再分配计划的政治授权,则给出了相当模糊的暗示。到目前为止,关于国家再分配以减少收入不平等的政治要求的提出方式,在很大程度上缺乏方法论的批判和创新。因此,本文检验了标准项目的有效性。它认为,传统的衡量标准只反映了对平等观念的普遍“倾向”。然而,由于项目措辞不具体,其他方向混淆了答案,因此最终政治行为的预测力很低。标准项目衡量的是不一致的平等主义偏好。这限制了其可靠性,因此几乎无法就投票给左翼政党或支持再分配计划得出任何结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the ambivalence of preferences for income redistribution: A research note
Increased income inequality, and policies that can limit its further growth, are an important issue for citizens, politicians and the media. Numerous empirical studies have measured political support for redistributive policies by asking whether the government should equalize gaps between rich and poor. They try to discover whether ‘redistributive’ policies are supported by public opinion and are therefore politically feasible. This research note argues that the standard instrument measures diffuse support for more equality, but gives rather vague hints if this support is transformed into a political mandate for redistributive programmes. With regard to the way in which the political demand for state redistribution to reduce income inequality has been raised so far, methodological critique and innovation is largely lacking. This article therefore tests the validity of the standard item. It argues that the conventional measurement only captures a general ‘inclination’ towards the idea of equality. However, since the item phrasing is unspecific, other orientations confound the answers, so that ultimately the predictive power in terms of political behaviour is low. The standard item measures egalitarian preferences with inconsistence. This limits its reliability, so that hardly any conclusions can be drawn regarding voting for left parties or support for redistributive programmes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of European Social Policy publishes articles on all aspects of social policy in Europe. Papers should make a contribution to understanding and knowledge in the field, and we particularly welcome scholarly papers which integrate innovative theoretical insights and rigorous empirical analysis, as well as those which use or develop new methodological approaches. The Journal is interdisciplinary in scope and both social policy and Europe are conceptualized broadly. Articles may address multi-level policy making in the European Union and elsewhere; provide cross-national comparative studies; and include comparisons with areas outside Europe.
期刊最新文献
What works? Researching participants’ experiences of a social policy RCT through qualitative interviews Cross-class solidarity in times of crisis: the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on support for redistribution COVID-19 hits care homes: A cross-national study of mortality rates Targeted transfers, a left-wing policy? The impact of left-wing governments and corporatism on transfers to low-income families (1982–2019) Help or harm? Examining the effects of active labour market programmes on young adults’ employment quality and the role of social origin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1