Untitled

Gouveia, Miguel; Masia, Neal A.

doi:10.1023/a:1004973610506

Cited by 74 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…thesis of a positive association between the ratio of mean to median income and redistribution expenditures. Findings from Gouveia and Masia (1998), however, run contrary to the argument advanced by Meltzer and Richard (1981). Analyzing panel data from the 50 U.S. states from 1979 to 1991 with a fixed effect model, Gouveia and Masia report that the ratio exerts a negative effect on redistributive 4 expenditures, but positive effect on public supply of private goods.…”

Section: Redistribution and American Federalismmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Several studies have examined the link between redistributive policies and inequality through the lens of the median voter theorem (e.g., Bergstrom, Rubinfeld, & Shapiro, 1982; de Mello & Tiongson, 2006; Gouveia & Masia, 1998; Gramlich & Rubinfeld, 1982; Mohl & Pamp, 2009; Rodríguez, 2004). Similar to public choice theories that explain public policy with economic models, the median voter theorem suggests that the median voter is the decisive group that shapes public policies in a majority system.…”

Section: Redistribution and American Federalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 4. For Gouveia and Masia (1998), redistributive spending includes AFDC, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, supplemental security income, housing and urban renewal. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Inequality and Competition in State Redistributive Systems: Evidence From Welfare and Health

Choi

Neshkova

2018

The American Review of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When determining their redistributive budgets, states must strike a subtle balance—to provide for their needy residents without becoming a “welfare magnet” and attracting poor individuals from neighboring states. We examine the competing incentives that state politicians face in federal systems and their effects on program accessibility and redistributive spending across U.S. states between 2005 and 2011. Comparing two redistributive programs under state control—Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—we find strong evidence of interstate competition in the case of cash assistance programs, but less evidence in the case of health care. Yet our data show that states do not alter their policies in response to rising inequality, that is, when the median voter becomes poorer than the average voter. Moreover, the Great Recession had a greater impact on TANF than Medicaid. We attribute these differential effects to different funding mechanisms used by the federal government to finance the two state-administered programs.

show abstract

Section: Redistribution and American Federalismmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Redistribution and American Federalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inequality and Competition in State Redistributive Systems: Evidence From Welfare and Health

Choi

Neshkova

2018

The American Review of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 The empirical validity of the model is not unequivocal. Some cross-national analyses have confirmed the theorem’s conclusion (Milanovic, 2000), but others have refuted it (Gouveia and Masia, 1998; Kenworthy and McCall, 2008). One study reported that the perceived inequality of the middle-income class translates directly into support for redistribution (for example, see Gründler and Köllner, 2017), but another study proposes different causal channels (Loayza et al, 2012).…”

Section: Social Insurance Motivations In Support Of Welfare Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The presence of a social context increases support for redistribution: Inequality aversion and risk aversion

Katô

Takesue

2023

International Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social insurance motivations consider the welfare of others who are in potentially unfavorable situations. However, their role in increasing support for redistribution is not yet fully understood. The experiment reported here examined distributional decisions in which participants determined income distribution without being informed to which income class they would belong. This was contrasted with decisions made in lottery situations. Lottery decisions had the same risk for oneself, but they lacked a social context, namely the influence on the incomes of others. Less risky (more equal) decisions were observed in distributional decisions than in lottery decisions. Further, the selection of equality in distributional decisions (but not the risk aversion observed in lottery decisions) was positively correlated with support for welfare policies, which had been measured by a pre-experiment survey. This study observed the critical role of social context, which promotes the consideration of the welfare of others in fostering support for redistribution.

show abstract

“…The empirical literature dealing with the Meltzer-Richard voting model hypothesis and its extensions offers mixed results. Quite surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge only Gouveia and Masia (1998) directly test the median to mean ratio hypothesis. Using panel data from the US states from 1979-1991, they find little evidence to support the model.…”

Section: The Meltzer-richard Logic and Some Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Income Inequality & Redistributional Spending: An Empirical Investigation of Competing Theories

Mohl,

Pamp

2009

Public Finance and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The link between income inequality and governmental redistribution is still subject to intense research and debate. Starting with the median-voter-hypothesis, a plethora of theoretical models have been developed during the last three decades to identify and explain possible causal relationships. the empirical evidence so far, however, has been mixed. the aim of this paper is to review the existing literature on inequality and redistribution, to explicate the theoretical causal mechanisms identified so far, and to provide a comprehensive and rigorous empirical test that overcomes some of the shortcomings of previous empirical studies. Using panel data on 23 OECD countries over the time period of 1971–2005, we not only look at different spending categories but also at the share gains of different income deciles and the median-to-mean ratio. We find robust evidence that income inequality affects redistribution. However, the precise degree of this relationship differs for different parts of the income distribution.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 74 publications

References 15 publications

Inequality and Competition in State Redistributive Systems: Evidence From Welfare and Health

Inequality and Competition in State Redistributive Systems: Evidence From Welfare and Health

The presence of a social context increases support for redistribution: Inequality aversion and risk aversion

Income Inequality & Redistributional Spending: An Empirical Investigation of Competing Theories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About