Abstract
Decades of research confirm that more schooling predicts lower support for redistribution, yet the channels remain contested. The Meltzer–Richard perspective stresses self-interest: by raising lifetime income and wealth, education reduces the material benefits individuals expect from tax–transfer policies. The competing view emphasizes ideas: education also shapes how people think about fairness and responsibility. Schooling may cultivate meritocratic beliefs, strengthen norms of individual effort, and reduce the sense of collective obligation. From this standpoint, redistribution is not rejected simply because it is costly, but because it is reinterpreted as undermining responsibility and reward (Attewell, 2022). Evidence from causal studies reinforces both interpretations. Bullock (2021) shows that compulsory schooling shifts attitudes on fiscal policy rightward, while Marshall (2019) finds that increases in minimum dropout ages reduce identification with the Democratic Party. These findings suggest that education can simultaneously alter economic positions and normative outlooks. Comparative evidence also demonstrates the importance of institutional context. When families bear the costs of schooling, education is experienced not only as an opportunity but also as a personal investment, strengthening the sense that individuals—not the state—should bear the risks and rewards of economic life (see also Doyle, 2007). This working paper builds on these debates to advance three hypotheses. The strength of the education gradient depends on policy design. Where education is largely privately financed, the combination of high returns and individualist norms sharpens opposition to redistribution; where it is publicly financed, solidaristic norms may soften or even reverse the gradient.
Details
Presentation Type
Theme
KEYWORDS
Education, Redistribution, Political Attitudes, Income And Wealth, Equality Of Opportunity
