Social Indicators Research

, Volume 142, Issue 1, pp 343–362 | Cite as

How Can we Achieve a Sustainable Redistributive Policy? Rethinking the Relationship Between Civic Engagement, Neighborhood Relationship and Labor Market Status

  • JaeYoul ShinEmail author


The aim of this article is to examine the effect of social relations on support for redistribution and to explore desirable forms of redistribution based on mutual understanding. Most previous studies have explained support for redistribution as insurance against risk or the pursuit of self-interest. Under the current framework, however, it is difficult to explain the establishment of a sustainable redistributive policy. To overcome this limitation, I focus on the role of social relations that suppress the tendency to pursue self-interest and promote support for redistribution. My findings indicate that social relations moderate the effect of self-interest and directly affect support for redistribution. From this result, I conclude that social relations could facilitate mutual understanding and alleviate the negative side effects of the labor market.


Social relations Neighborhood relationship Civic engagement Support for redistribution Skill specificity Redistribution Social policy 



This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16H02045, as part of the SSP Project ( This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17J01448. I would like to thank the anonymous referee for valuable input in the process of writing this article.

Supplementary material

11205_2018_1922_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)


  1. Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3), 236–253.Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., & Angeletos, G. M. (2005). Fairness and redistribution: US vs. Europe, American Economic Review, 95, 913–935.Google Scholar
  3. Alesina, A. F., & Giuliano, P. (2009). Preferences for redistribution (No. w14825). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  4. Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of public Economics, 89(5), 897–931.Google Scholar
  5. Alt, J., & Iversen, T. (2017). Inequality, labor market segmentation, and preferences for redistribution. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 21–36.Google Scholar
  6. Arikan, G., & Bloom, P. B. (2015). Social values and cross-national differences in attitudes towards welfare. Political Studies, 63, 431–448.Google Scholar
  7. Backus, P. G., & Esteller-Moré, A. (2017). Risk aversion and inequity aversion in demand for unemployment benefits. International Tax and Public Finance, 24(2), 198–220.Google Scholar
  8. Barabaschi, B. (2015). Intergenerational Solidarity in the Workplace: Can It Solve Europe’s Labor Market and Social Welfare Crises? SAGE Open, 5(4), 2158244015621464.Google Scholar
  9. Benabou, R., & Ok, E. A. (2001). Social mobility and the demand for redistribution: The POUM hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), 447–487.Google Scholar
  10. Berger, B. (2009). Political theory, political science and the end of civic engagement. Perspectives on Politics, 7(2), 335–350.Google Scholar
  11. Blekesaune, M. (2013). Economic strain and public support for redistribution: A comparative analysis of 28 European Countries. Journal of Social Policy, 42(01), 57–72.Google Scholar
  12. Bothner, M. S., Stuart, T. E., & White, H. C. (2004). Status differentiation and the cohesion of social networks. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 28(4), 261–295.Google Scholar
  13. Brady, D., & Bostic, A. (2015). Paradoxes of social policy: Welfare transfers, relative poverty, and redistribution preferences. American Sociological Review, 80(2), 268–298.Google Scholar
  14. Brady, D., & Finnigan, R. (2014). Does immigration undermine public support for social policy? American Sociological Review, 79(1), 17–42.Google Scholar
  15. Burgoon, B., Koster, F., & Van Egmond, M. (2012). Support for redistribution and the paradox of immigration. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(3), 288–304.Google Scholar
  16. Checchi, D., & Filippin, A. (2004). An experimental study of the POUM hypothesis. In F. Cowell (Ed.), Inequality, welfare and income distribution: Experimental approaches. Research on Economic Inequality (Vol. 11, pp. 115–136). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, J. L., & Arato, A. (1994). Civil society and political theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cojocaru, A. (2014). Prospects of upward mobility and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from the life in transition survey. European Journal of Political Economy, 34, 300–314.Google Scholar
  19. Corneo, G., & Fong, C. M. (2008). What’s the monetary value of distributive justice? Journal of Public Economics, 92(1), 289–308.Google Scholar
  20. Corneo, G., & Grüner, H. P. (2002). Individual preferences for political redistribution. Journal of public Economics, 83(1), 83–107.Google Scholar
  21. Cusack, T., Iversen, T., & Rehm, P. (2006). Risks at work: The demand and supply sides of government redistribution. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(3), 365–389.Google Scholar
  22. Diez Roux, A. V. (2001). Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1783–1789.Google Scholar
  23. Durante, R., Putterman, L., & Weele, J. (2014). Preferences for redistribution and perception of fairness: An experimental study. Journal of the European Economic Association, 12(4), 1059–1086.Google Scholar
  24. Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human affairs, 22(3), 283–300.Google Scholar
  25. Fox, C. (2004). The changing color of welfare? How Whites’ attitudes toward Latinos influence support for welfare. American Journal of Sociology, 110(3), 580–625.Google Scholar
  26. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.Google Scholar
  27. Guillaud, E. (2013). Preferences for redistribution: An empirical analysis over 33 countries’. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 11(1), 57–78.Google Scholar
  28. Habermas, J. (1984) [1981]. The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.) (Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  29. Habermas, J. (1987) [1981]. The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.) (Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  30. Hipp, J. R., & Wickes, R. (2016). Minority Status Distortion and Preference for In-group Ties: Consequences for Social Capital. Socius, 2, 2378023116640281.Google Scholar
  31. Iversen, T., & Soskice, D. (2001). An asset theory of social policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 875–893.Google Scholar
  32. Iversen, T., & Soskice, D. (2006). Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: Why some democracies redistribute more than others. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 165–181.Google Scholar
  33. Jæger, M. M. (2006). Welfare regimes and attitudes towards redistribution: The regime hypothesis revisited. European Sociological Review, 22(2), 157–170.Google Scholar
  34. Kearns, A., Bailey, N., Gannon, M., Livingston, M., & Leyland, A. (2014). ‘All in it together’? Social cohesion in a divided society: Attitudes to income inequality and redistribution in a residential context. Journal of Social Policy, 43(3), 453–477.Google Scholar
  35. Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002). The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. Medford: Center for information and research on civic learning and engagement (CIRCLE).Google Scholar
  36. Kirkpatrick, L. O. (2007). The two “logics” of community development: Neighborhoods, markets, and community development corporations”. Politics & Society, 35(2), 329–359.Google Scholar
  37. Kulin, J., Eger, M. A., & Hjerm, M. (2016). Immigration or welfare? The progressive’s dilemma revisited. Socius. Scholar
  38. Kulin, J., & Svallfors, S. (2013). Class, values, and attitudes towards redistribution: A European comparison. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 155–167.Google Scholar
  39. Luttmer, E. F. (2001). Group loyalty and the taste for redistribution. Journal of Political Economy, 109(3), 500–528.Google Scholar
  40. Martín, I., & Van Deth, J. W. (2007). 12 Political involvement. In J. W. van Deth, J. R. Montero (Eds.), Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A comparative analysis (pp. 303–333). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Nagayoshi, K., & Sato, Y. (2014). Who supports redistributive policies in contemporary Japan? An integrative approach to self-interest and trust models. International Sociology, 29(4), 302–323.Google Scholar
  42. Offe, C. (1987). Democracy against the welfare state? Structural foundations of neoconservative political opportunities. Political Theory, 15(4), 501–537.Google Scholar
  43. Paskov, M., & Dewilde, C. (2012). Income inequality and solidarity in Europe. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(4), 415–432.Google Scholar
  44. Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771–784.Google Scholar
  45. Polanyi, K. (2001) [1944]. The great transformation:(The political and economic origin of our time). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  46. Raven, J., Achterberg, P., Van der Veen, R., & Yerkes, M. (2011). An institutional embeddedness of welfare opinions? The link between public opinion and social policy in the Netherlands (1970–2004). Journal of Social Policy, 40(2), 369–386.Google Scholar
  47. Rehm, P. (2009). Risks and redistribution: An individual-level analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42(7), 855–881.Google Scholar
  48. Robert, P. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rodger, J. J. (2003). Social solidarity, welfare and post-emotionalism. Journal of Social Policy, 32(3), 403–421.Google Scholar
  50. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free press.Google Scholar
  51. Schmidt, U. (2016). Insurance demand under prospect theory: A graphical analysis. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83(1), 77–89.Google Scholar
  52. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.Google Scholar
  53. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.Google Scholar
  54. Shin, J. (2017). Relative deprivation, satisfying rationality, and support for redistribution. Social Indicators Research. Scholar
  55. Svallfors, S. (1997). Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: A comparison of eight western nations. European Sociological Review, 13(3), 283–304.Google Scholar
  56. Svallfors, S. (2006). The moral economy of class: Class and attitudes in comparative perspective. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Svallfors, S., Kulin, J., & Schnabel, A. (2012). Age, class, and attitudes towards government responsibilities. In S. Svallfors (Ed.), Contested welfare states. Welfare attitudes in Europe and beyond. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Talò, C., & Mannarini, T. (2015). Measuring participation: Development and validation the participatory behaviors scale. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 799–816.Google Scholar
  59. Tóth, I. G. & Keller, T. (2011). Income distributions, inequality perceptions and redistributive claims in European societies. AIAS, GINI Discussion Paper 7.Google Scholar
  60. Yamamura, E. (2012). Social capital, household income, and preferences for income redistribution. European Journal of Political Economy, 28(4), 498–511.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Human SciencesOsaka UniversitySuitaJapan

Personalised recommendations