Can Inequality be fair? with David Rueda

Hosts: Marius R. Busemeyer – Professor of Comparative Political Economy at the University of Konstanz and Speaker of the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”. Gabriele Spilker – Professor of International Politics at the University of Konstanz and Co-Speaker of the Cluster.Guest: David Rueda – Professor of Comparative Politics at the University of Oxford and Fellow at Nuffield College; Senior Fellow at the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”. His research focuses on the political economy of redistribution, unions and social democracy, and perceptions of fairness and deservingness.Episode OverviewIs inequality always seen as unfair? Or do people sometimes consider it justified? In this episode, Marius R. Busemeyer and Gabriele Spilker speak with David Rueda about fairness, meritocracy, and the political foundations of redistribution.Drawing on large-scale surveys and innovative lab experiments, Rueda shows that support for redistribution is not driven by income alone. While material self-interest matters, perceptions of fairness and deservingness play a crucial role in shaping attitudes toward taxation, welfare, and inequality. The episode also explores how concerns about crime, insecurity, and social order intersect with redistributive politics — and whether investing in redistribution may ultimately be more effective than investing in punishment.Episode HighlightsFairness, Merit, and Self-InterestInequality is more likely to be accepted when it is perceived as the outcome of effort and merit rather than luck.Support for redistribution reflects both material self-interest and normative beliefs about fairness.Information and Inequality PerceptionsSurvey experiments show that informing citizens about high levels of inequality increases support for redistribution among the poor.Among the rich, the same information increases polarization: some become less supportive, others more supportive.What Happens in the Lab?Participants perform a real effort task and earn income, which is then subject to taxation and redistribution with real monetary consequences.Procedural fairness matters: affluent participants are more supportive of redistribution when the poor have worked but were disadvantaged by luck.Redistribution vs. PolicingIn a second stage, participants can invest either in redistribution or in policing to deter theft.When the rich underinvest in redistribution, they later spend more on policing.Implications for Welfare State PoliticsSupport for redistribution among the poor is relatively stable; shifts among the rich are crucial.Perceptions of work, merit, and deservingness strongly shape affluent voters’ preferences.Links & Further ReadingMore about the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality”: www.exc.uni-konstanz.de/inequality· Further information: o   Fetscher, V. and Rueda, D. (2023): “For Richer and for Poorer: Income, Perceptions of Inequality and Support for Redistribution”. Preprint. o   Rueda, D. and Stegmueller, D. (2019): “Who Wants What? Redistribution Preferences in Comparative Perspective”. Cambridge University Press.o   In_equality Colloquium with David Rueda: “Crime or redistribution: Fairness, effort and income”. 8 Octobre 2024. Contact: [email protected] episodes every first Wednesday of the month – subscribe and stay tuned!