Jeg har tit undret mig over, hvad det reelt er, der motiverer venstrefløjens støtte til den massive omfordeling, som foregår i socialstatens navn. I vælgeradfærdsforskningen giver de økonomisk rationelle mikromodeller et fornuftigt svar herpå. Den egotropiske vælgeradfærd er velkendt og begreber som pocketbook voting (Gerald H. Kramer) forklarer, hvorfor mindrebemidlede har en interesse i, at støtte partier, som går ind for massiv omfordeling.
Hvorfor middelklassen med god købekraft støtter den massive omfordeling, kan muligvis forklares med udgangspunkt i Jørgen Dichs mesterværk, Den herskende klasse, der fremlægger den pointe, at middelklassen har en interesse i den fortsatte ekspansion af velfærdsstaten, fordi de selv har økonomisk incitament hertil. Socialstaten er for dem en måde at sikre selvopholdelsen på.
Men hvordan kan man så forklare, at der er utallige eksempler på, at rige mennesker støtter den massive omfordeling? I vælgeradfærdsforskningen vil man forklare dette ud fra en kulturel/sociologisk model som eksempelvis Ingleharts teori om postmaterialismen.
Et studie fra Center for Evolutionary Psychology giver imidlertid en række interessante indsigter i de mekanismer, der ligger til grund for, at forskellige indkomstgrupper støtter den massive omfordeling. Undersøgelsen tager udgangspunkt i Storbritannien, USA og Indien.
Tesen er, at støtte til omfordeling er evolutionært betinget.
The human mind has been organized by natural selection to respond to evolutionarily recurrent challenges and opportunities pertaining to the social distribution of resources, as well as other social interactions. …For example, it was hypothesized that modern welfare activates the evolved forager risk-pooling psychology — a psychology that causes humans to be more motivated to share when individual productivity is subject to chance-driven interruptions, and less motivated to share when they think they are being exploited by low-effort free riders. Ancestrally, sharing resources that came in unsynchronized, high-variance, large packages (e.g., large game) allowed individuals to buffer each other’s shortfalls at low additional cost.*
Det undersøges hernæst, hvilke faktorer, der betinger støtten til omfordeling. Som ventet er blandt andet medfølelse/empati med til at determinere en positiv holdning over for omfordeling. Men hvad der er endnu mere interessant, er, at det viser sig, at misundelse kan forudsige en positiv holdning over for omfordeling (!):
…consider envy. Participants in the United States, India, and the United Kingdom (studies 1a–c) were given two hypothetical scenarios and asked to indicate their preferred one. In one scenario, the wealthy pay an additional 10% in taxes, and the poor receive an additional sum of money. In the other scenario, the wealthy pay an additional 50% in taxes (i.e., a tax increment five times greater than in the first scenario), and the poor receive (only) one-half the additional amount that they receive in the first scenario. That is, higher taxes paid by the wealthy yielded relatively less money for the poor, and vice versa… Fourteen percent to 18% of the American, Indian, and British participants indicated a preference for the scenario featuring a higher tax rate for the wealthy even though it produced less money to help the poor (SI Appendix, Table S3). We regressed this wealthy-harming preference simultaneously on support for redistribution… Dispositional envy was the only reliable predictor. A unit increase in envy is associated with 23%, 47%, and 43% greater odds of preferring the wealthy-harming scenario in the United States, India, and the United Kingdom.
Endnu mere interessant er det, at forventet egenberigelse også kan forudsige en positiv holdning over for omfordeling:
By contrast, dispositional compassion, dispositional envy, and expected personal gain from redistribution predicted support for redistribution in each of the three studies.
Og dykker vi ned i partitilslutningen, ser vi, at Demokraterne i USA rapporterer en højere forventet personlig gevinst ved omfordeling, end Libertarianere og Republikanere gør:
Consistent with historical survey data (60), self-described Democrats endorsed redistribution to a greater extent than Republicans and Libertarians did. Democrats also reported more compassion and more expected personal gain from redistribution than Republicans and Libertarians did
Er man interesseret i mere udførlig gennemgang, har jeg henvist til studiet ovenfor i citat-boksen. For at se den statistiske gennemgang af resultaterne, kan man her tilgå en hjemmeside, hvor forskerne har samlet resultaterne: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2017/07/12/1703801114.DCSupplemental/pnas.1703801114.sap S1 opsummerer resultaterne. Her ses det, at personlig gevinst og misundelse faktisk er ret solide indikatorer.
