LSE III Event | If not government, then what? A three-part typology of redistributive preferences

LSE III Event | If not government, then what? A three-part typology of redistributive preferences

by Leslie McCall

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought Economics & Finance KCEconomicsKCPPolitical economy
🎙 Leslie McCall 👥 617 📅 September 29, 2025 ⏱ 77 min 👁 85 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-08-16
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

redistributive preferencesmarket responsibilitygovernment redistributionindividual responsibilityinequality

Summary

In this keynote lecture at the LSE International Inequalities Institute’s 10th anniversary conference, Professor Leslie McCall presents a new framework for understanding public preferences on reducing economic inequality. She argues that existing research predominantly focuses on government redistribution through taxes and transfers, leaving a residual category of those who oppose such measures, often interpreted as favoring individual responsibility or accepting inequality. McCall proposes a three-part typology that adds a third option: market responsibility, where major institutions and actors in the market sphere should reduce labor earnings inequality. Using data from the General Social Survey and the International Social Survey Programme, she shows that a substantial share of the public supports market responsibility, often exceeding support for government redistribution, particularly in Anglo-Saxon countries and Switzerland. This challenges the ’neoliberal public hypothesis’ that opposition to government redistribution implies acceptance of inequality. The presentation includes a detailed discussion of survey question design and robustness checks, and concludes with implications for future research on inequality preferences.

162 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The value of the information is high, as it challenges a dominant assumption in the literature on redistributive preferences. The argumentation is solid, based on large-scale, representative survey data and careful methodological considerations. The speaker systematically tests the two-part typology against a new three-part framework, providing descriptive statistics and robustness checks. The logical progression from motivation to data to findings is clear and compelling.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The scientific rigor is strong, with reliance on well-established surveys (GSS, ISSP) and a transparent methodology. The sources are appropriate and cited in the context of the research. The title accurately reflects the content, which is a presentation of a new typology. The speaker is a leading expert, and the work is part of a larger research agenda with multiple collaborators.

140 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content, which proposes a three-part typology of redistributive preferences beyond government vs. individual responsibility.

Quality & Reliability

8/10

The presentation is based on rigorous survey data from the GSS and ISSP, with a clear methodological framework and robustness checks. The speaker is a recognized expert in the field. However, as a work in progress, some results are preliminary and not yet peer-reviewed.

Key Moments

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

Cited Sources

Concurring Sources

  • The Undeserving Rich: American Beliefs about Inequality, Opportunity, and Redistribution — McCall's prior work on American beliefs about inequality and redistribution.

Contribution & Novelties

This presentation offers a novel contribution by introducing a third dimension to the study of redistributive preferences: market responsibility. It challenges the conventional dichotomy of government vs. individual responsibility and provides empirical evidence that a significant portion of the public supports market-based solutions to inequality. This opens new avenues for research and policy discussions.

Pour aller plus loin :

93 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in quality and reliability, with moderate scores in quantity and technical level. This indicates a well-researched and credible presentation, though the technical depth may be moderate for a specialized audience.

Reliability 8/10