Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Working Knowledge
Business Research for Business Leaders
  • Browse All Articles
  • Popular Articles
  • Cold Call Podcast
  • Managing the Future of Work Podcast
  • About Us
  • Book
  • Leadership
  • Marketing
  • Finance
  • Management
  • Entrepreneurship
  • All Topics...
  • Topics
    • COVID-19
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Finance
    • Gender
    • Globalization
    • Leadership
    • Management
    • Negotiation
    • Social Enterprise
    • Strategy
  • Sections
    • Book
    • Podcasts
    • HBS Case
    • In Practice
    • Lessons from the Classroom
    • Op-Ed
    • Research & Ideas
    • Research Event
    • Sharpening Your Skills
    • What Do You Think?
    • Working Paper Summaries
  • Browse All
    Income Inequality and Social Preferences for Redistribution and Compensation Differentials
    20 Jan 2012Working Paper Summaries

    Income Inequality and Social Preferences for Redistribution and Compensation Differentials

    by William R. Kerr
    Market-based factors have substantially increased inequality in the United States over the last three decades. If the inequality caused by these mechanisms reduces social preferences regarding distributive equality, the inequality can become amplified and entrenched. The potential thus exists for the formation of a "vicious cycle" where increases in disparity weaken concern for wage equality or redistribution. This weakened concern affords greater future compensation differentials, a shrinking of the welfare state, and so on that further increase inequality and again shift preferences. Alternatively, changes in social preferences can counteract inequality increases. William Kerr characterizes how changes in inequality affect social attitudes towards government-led redistribution and compensation differentials. The results of this study provide mixed evidence regarding the vicious-cycle hypothesis. Kerr's findings suggest that social preferences regarding inequality adjust to desire more redistribution while allowing greater labor market inequality. Key concepts include:
    • Controlling for people's initial positions and views of social mobility, local changes in inequality are positively and significantly correlated with changes in support for government-led redistribution.
    • While greater class conflict is perceived along income dimensions, the increases in support for redistribution among wealthy individuals are as strong as those of poorer individuals.
    • The results of this study suggest that a short-term increase in inequality is unlikely to prompt a vicious cycle where support for redistribution declines, thereby promoting further increase in inequality.
    • On the other hand, significant growth in proposed wage differentials are evident in the international analyses with higher inequality. While less than one-for-one, increases in inequality are associated with greater acceptance of wage disparities. This pattern suggests that labor market changes may reinforce inequality growth.
    • How political systems are structured will govern whether rising latent concerns for redistribution produce higher effective support to which politicians are held accountable.
    LinkedIn
    Email

    Author Abstract

    In cross-sectional studies, countries with greater income inequality typically exhibit less support for government-led redistribution and greater acceptance of wage inequality (e.g., United States versus Western Europe). If individual nations evolve along this pattern, a vicious cycle could form with reduced social concern amplifying primal increases in inequality due to forces like skill-biased technical change. Exploring movements around these long-term levels, however, this study finds mixed evidence regarding the vicious cycle hypothesis. On one hand, larger compensation differentials are accepted as inequality grows. This growth in differentials is of a smaller magnitude than the actual increase in inequality, but it is nonetheless positive and substantial in size. Weighing against this, growth in inequality is met with greater support for government-led redistribution to the poor. These patterns suggest that short-run inequality shocks can be reinforced in the labor market but do not result in weaker political preferences for redistribution.

    Paper Information

    • Full Working Paper Text
    • Working Paper Publication Date: December 2011
    • HBS Working Paper Number: 12-048
    • Faculty Unit(s): Entrepreneurial Management
      Trending
        • 16 Mar 2023
        • Research & Ideas

        Why Business Travel Still Matters in a Zoom World

        • 01 Mar 2023
        • What Do You Think?

        How Much Does 'Deep Purpose' Matter to the Bottom Line?

        • 14 Mar 2023
        • In Practice

        What Does the Failure of Silicon Valley Bank Say About the State of Finance?

        • 13 Mar 2023
        • Op-Ed

        How Leaders Should Leave

        • 25 Jan 2022
        • Research & Ideas

        More Proof That Money Can Buy Happiness (or a Life with Less Stress)

    William R. Kerr
    William R. Kerr
    Dimitri V. D'Arbeloff - MBA Class of 1955 Professor of Business Administration
    Unit Head, Entrepreneurial Management
    Contact
    Send an email
    → More Articles
    Find Related Articles
    • Society
    • Economics
    • North & Central America
    • United States

    Sign up for our weekly newsletter

    Interested in improving your business? Learn about fresh research and ideas from Harvard Business School faculty.
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
    ǁ
    Campus Map
    Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
    Baker Library | Bloomberg Center
    Soldiers Field
    Boston, MA 02163
    Email: Editor-in-Chief
    →Map & Directions
    →More Contact Information
    • Make a Gift
    • Site Map
    • Jobs
    • Harvard University
    • Trademarks
    • Policies
    • Accessibility
    • Digital Accessibility
    Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College