Redistribution

PNAS 123/33 pp. e2617191123-e2617191123 2026-08-10 Original Americans favor predistributive over redistributive economic policies David Broska, Jonne Kamphorst, Robb Willer Abstract Redistributive policies designed to reduce economic inequality through taxes and transfers (e.g., safety-net benefits funded by progressive taxation) receive less support in the United States than in many Western democracies. Recent work suggests Americans may be more receptive to "predistributive" policies, which seek to reduce economic inequality before taxes and transfers (e.g., minimum-wage increases). Yet existing evidence leaves open whether this support gap characterizes contemporary Americans overall, and whether it persists when the same policy proposals are described in predistributive vs. redistributive terms, with their core provisions held constant. Across 31 national U.S. survey waves from 2015 to 2024 (total [Formula: see text]), we find greater support for policies classified as predistributive than redistributive. We then fielded a preregistered experiment with a national U.S. sample ([Formula: see text]), randomly varying whether otherwise identical policy proposals were described as increasing earnings for people lower in the income distribution, shifting resources from higher- to lower-income individuals, or presented only with the policy description given in all conditions. Support was higher under predistributive than redistributive descriptions. Comparison with the control condition clarifies this difference: Predistributive descriptions received support comparable to control, whereas redistributive descriptions received lower support. Exploratory analyses suggest perceived respect for hard work and beneficiary deservingness were associated with the support gap. Together, these results suggest Americans prefer policies that reduce inequality by influencing earnings more than through taxes and transfers.

WP 78/2 pp. 293-332 2026-04-01 Original The More Things Change: Legacies of Race and Segregation in South Africa's Land Reform Alex Dyzenhaus Abstract abstract: How does land reform occur and under what conditions do land transfers take place? The author argues that to understand contemporary market-driven land reform outcomes, one must examine the supply-side incentives of existing landholders in addition to demand-side explanations. Interviews and descriptive geospatial data from two provinces in South Africa show that landholders made land reform work for them and in doing so the redistribution of land reinforced past forms of segregation. These landholders' strategies were shaped by place-specific historical legacies of racial segregation: Some white farmers—in places in which spatial segregation fell on a rural-urban axis and economic segregation excluded black people from agriculture—used land redistribution to buffer their farms against predominantly black settlements. Other white farmers—in rural areas with dispersed spatial segregation and a large, but different, black farming sector—incorporated black farmers into the commercial value chain via land redistribution. The author's findings have implications for studies of redistribution in highly unequal contexts—that is, market-based redistribution can reinforce historical spatial and economic segregation.