The Politics of Inequality in a "Classless Society"

Americans’ attitudes toward redistribution, at least as revealed in social surveys, are somewhat more positive and nuanced than usually assumed. In the 2008 General Social Survey, 46 percent of Americans agreed that “it is the responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income between people with high incomes and those with low incomes.” In early 2009, Gallup found that 52 percent endorsed the statement that “our government should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich.” At about the same time, attitudes toward redistributive policies, both actual and hypothetical, were even more positive: 68 percent agreed that “the government must see to it that no one is without food, clothing or shelter;” 61 percent favored “national health insurance, which would be financed by tax money;” and fully 71 percent endorsed the view that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that minorities have schools equal in quality to whites, even if it means you will have to pay more.”

Results like these suggest the generalization that while Americans tend to be philosophically conservative, but pragmatically liberal. Something like this may well be roughly true – even if the exact numbers supporting redistributive principles and policies drift around depending on current economic conditions and political debates. But social psychologist Keith Payne proposes to test the hypothesis that levels of support for redistribution, substantial as they are, might be even higher if Americans didn’t underestimate the current extent of economic inequality and overestimate the current level of economic mobility in the U.S. Payne’s reasoning is straightforward. If some Americans think there is less inequality than actually exists, they may feel that redistribution is unnecessary. If they believe that there is more mobility than actually exists, they may feel that whatever inequality exists is justified because it reflects differences in individual effort and ability in a fundamentally meritocratic system where everyone has a fair shot.

Professor Payne proposes to conduct three large laboratory experiments to determine whether informing subjects about the inaccuracy of their beliefs about inequality and mobility will cause them to change their preference for redistribution – both in principle and in terms of specific redistributive policies. Subjects will first be asked to estimate the level of wealth inequality in the U.S. and the level of intergenerational mobility, using Payne’s pilot procedure. Then, the subjects will be divided into four groups: one group will receive feedback about the true level of wealth inequality; one group will get feedback about the true level of intergenerational mobility; one group will get both kinds of feedback; and one group will get no feedback. After feedback, subjects’ preferences for redistribution will be measured using an index score derived from answers to a set of questions about redistributive policies pulled from existing surveys (e.g., “How do you feel about raising federal income taxes for people who make more than $250,000 to pay for public services for low income individuals?”). Then the inequality and mobility tests will be readministered to check whether subjects actually learned from the feedback provided. Finally, a battery of survey questions will be administered to measure possible mediating or moderating variables, such as moral judgments, political ideology, beliefs in meritocracy, or beliefs in the efficiency of government.